Sitting of 9 June 2003

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

    Benefits Payment
    Mr. Peter Luff: What steps he has taken to ensure that all pensioners have been fully informed about the changes in the methods of paying benefits. [117282]
    Tim Loughton: What steps the Government have taken to inform pensioners of changes regarding direct payment of benefits. [117292]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Department is writing to all affected pensioners. That started in January and will continue for two years. The letters are backed up by a national advertising campaign, an information phone line and advice through the Pension Service so that people can choose the account that suits them best. No one needs to take any action until contacted. We are honouring the pledge to enable people who want to collect their money in cash at the post office to do that. So far, around half of the pensioners who have responded asked for the Post Office card account. All high street banks are offering basic bank accounts, which are, of course, accessible at the post office. Some main accounts will also be accessible.
    Mr. Luff: The Post Office card account was to be the salvation of many sub-pos0t offices. Why are sub-post offices not allowed to promote it to their customers? I am delighted that half of them have taken up the offer, but it is a pathetic shadow of what it should have been. I have in my constituency a 91-year-old Royal Mail pensioner who cannot pay her pension into a Post Office card account. Perhaps the Post Office is not allowed to promote it because it is so inadequate.
    Mr. Smith: Many sub-postmasters and postmistresses have been energetic in promoting the Post Office card accounts. [Interruption.] As I said, if the hon. Gentleman will listen, in my initial answer, around half of the pensioners who have responded requested the Post Office card account. That hardly points to failure to promote it. All the material that we issue draws the
    388
    account's availability to pensioners' attention. The hon. Gentleman should recognise that it is not our job to tell pensioners or other benefit claimants what form of account they should have. That is up to them. Instead of harking back to the days when people were forced to use the post office, I hope that Conservative Members will embrace modern options that offer more choice, convenience and flexibility, and less fraud.
    Tim Loughton: My constituents are doubly interested in the matter. The headquarters of the National Federation of Sub-Postmasters is based in my constituency, which also has many pensioners. For many years they have been forced to use post offices, but are happy with that system. They are greatly concerned by proposals to introduce key pads, which, as we warned for many months, are not suitable, especially for those with disabilities and those who rely on the help of sub-postmasters.
    Will the Secretary of State confirm that key pads that are deemed not to be disabled-friendly are being ripped out? Will he also state when that will happen, the cost of doing it and the reason for the time it has taken to get around to it? Will he confirm that sub-postmasters and mistresses can continue to help people who need guidance to get the benefits that his ridiculous red tape and bureaucratic nonsense prevent them from obtaining?
    Mr. Smith: I will not let the hon. Gentleman's rhetoric get in the way of a sensible answer, because I can reassure him about several points. Like other hon. Members, he knows that 68 per cent. of new pensioners have money paid in to their bank account and that 90 per cent. of pensioners have access to a bank account. That is why the choice that we are making available is so important.
    The hon. Gentleman is right that the Post Office is reviewing the PIN pad's adequacy. It is developing a key guard, which will help to guide users who might otherwise have difficulty in using the PIN pad. I assure him that the Post Office will be able to help disabled customers. Moreover, it has put in place specific training programmes to ensure that staff can assist disabled customers.
    I assure hon. Members that no one requires those who cannot use the PIN pad to give up their order books. The Post Office is developing alternative technology to ensure that all customers can access cash in the post office in a modern and secure way when the order book is no longer available. We should remember that every week, 100 pensioners have their pension payment books stolen. Modern methods of payment put that theft and fraud behind us.
    Mr. David Kidney: Is it not the case that, on retiring, many people chose a bank account into which their pension would be paid before direct credit was introduced? Is not it important for the viability of small post offices that they capture the market in banking services?
    Mr. Smith: My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have already cited the statistic that 68 per cent. of new pensioners opt to have their pensions paid into bank

    389
    accounts. My hon. Friend is right to say that there is an opportunity for the Post Office to build on the £2 billion that we are making available for investment, including £450 million to sustain rural networks. This is a major opportunity for the Post Office to expand its banking opportunities and to maximise its footfall, thereby guaranteeing a commercially viable future for a service that every hon. Member values enormously.
    Mr. Martin O'Neill: This is a complex issue, and it requires a great deal of expenditure of time, effort and money to get across the complexity of the message. Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in discussions that my colleagues on the Trade and Industry Committee and I had with Post Office Counters representatives, we were informed that, based on their experience in private banking, those representatives believed that a move of this radical character would need an expenditure of about £100 million on advertising? I understand that the Department for Work and Pensions has made available barely a third of that amount.
    Mr. Smith: I greatly welcome the contribution that my hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Select Committee are making to the examination of this important issue. It is rare for a Minister at the Dispatch Box to be urged to spend more money on advertising than he is currently doing. However, before we compare our expenditure on the promotion of the Post Office card account and direct payment with what would be spent in the commercial world, we must remember that we are in a position to write to all our customers, as we shall be doing over the next couple of years. I am satisfied that the £25 million that we have allocated to publicity, including national advertising, is a reasonable allocation. Of course we shall be reviewing progress, and I am sure that my hon. Friend's Select Committee will be keeping the matter closely under review as well. Should it be necessary to vary the advertising budget, or the way in which that is organised in the future, I stand ready to do so.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: The Secretary of State will know that many people—some of whom are among the most vulnerable in our society—are concerned about this change to direct payment, not least because of the fiasco of the PIN pads. Many pensioners are simply unable or unwilling to make the change that the right hon. Gentleman is asking them to make. Ministers have claimed that those people's interests are to be safeguarded by an exceptions service, but I have asked numerous questions about this and Ministers have given no further details about either the timetable or the nature of the service. Will the Secretary of State now give the House an assurance from the Dispatch Box that the exceptions service will be fully up and running throughout the country by 2005? Will he also, at last, reveal what criteria will determine whether someone will qualify for the service? Will it be restricted to those who are medically unable to open or manage an account, or will those with other genuine concerns about direct payment also be included? The Government must now give answers to these questions. If they do not, they will be providing yet more confirmation that the only
    390
    exceptional thing about this whole mess is the exceptional incompetence of the Department for Work and Pensions.
    Mr. Smith: The exceptional thing is that such a huge undertaking as the introduction of a universal banking service has got up and running properly and on time. Whatever other criticisms the hon. Gentleman might have, he ought to be congratulating the Post Office and the staff at the Department for Work and Pensions on achieving that. In answer to his questions: yes, we shall have the exceptions service up and running by the time that it is needed, when order books are no longer available. On the criteria, we shall consult closely—as we have done already—with representative groups of older people, disabled people and others to ensure that those criteria are sensible and meet people's needs, so that all those who want to do so can access their cash at the post office, as well as using the other options available to them through bank accounts, building society pass books and cheques.

    Private Pension Funds
    Mr. Mark Hoban: If he will make a statement on the current value of private pension funds. [117283]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): At the end of 2001, the most recent year for which Office for National Statistics figures are available, it was estimated that the total assets of self-administered pension funds were about £712 billion.
    Mr. Hoban: One of the concerns that my constituents express when faced with the decline in value of their pension funds relates to how they could live off the annuity that the funds would purchase. What thought have the Government given to relaxing the ways in which such funds can be used, so that pensioners could maximise their income and thus reduce their dependency on means-tested benefits?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman will have seen the Green Paper that was published recently. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish further proposals soon. As the hon. Gentleman will know, there are suggestions in the Green Paper.
    Mr. Frank Field: The news that the Minister has given today will be welcomed by about half the population, who have a stake in occupational pensions. But will she give us some idea of what the Government plan to do for those who, having thought that they had a stake, find that their schemes have been wound-up and their claims have either disappeared or largely disappeared? Are the Government thinking of using some of the £13,000 million of unclaimed assets that lie idle in the balances of banks and building societies as an endowment, to ensure that the loss of funds that people thought they had for their retirement can be made good?
    Maria Eagle: As ever, my right hon. Friend has advanced interesting ideas about this in his Pensions (Winding Up) Bill. I know that over the weekend he spoke to the ASW pensioners, who organised a march to draw attention to their circumstances. Such cases bring into sharp focus the need for action to reduce the risk of such developments. There is no doubt that those who lose their pensions—and their families and friends—will be less likely to save for the future. It behoves us all to come up with arrangements that will protect pensions better, otherwise people simply will not save.
    The right hon. Gentleman mentioned unclaimed assets. "Unclaimed" does not necessarily mean that the assets do not belong to someone. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that these issues are fraught and difficult, especially for those currently affected, but we are willing to consider any suggestions that he or anyone else may have. That has been the aim of our consultation. The response to the Green Paper will enable us to change the arrangements so that similar problems do not occur in the future.
    Mr. Steve Webb: As was pointed out by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), the value of a pension fund to a worker whose employer goes bankrupt is often a tiny fraction of what the worker expected. The Government have let it be known through the media that they are considering an insurance-based solution. Does the Minister agree that any insurance scheme must be underwritten by the Government? Otherwise there could be yet another fraud, and people could not just lose the pensions they had expected but find that the insurance schemes have gone bankrupt as well.
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman refers to speculation in the press about what might be in the response to the Green Paper. It is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to present that response to Parliament; I cannot speculate on suggestions in the newspapers.
    Mr. Ken Purchase: Does the Minister understand—I am sure she does—that when a company goes into administration with the pension fund in tow, as has happened at Chart Industries, Incorporated in my constituency, it takes years for workers to become aware of their pension entitlements? That is a very anxious time for people. Would the Minister consider telling her friends in the Treasury that it might not be a bad idea for those with company pensions to be preferential creditors pari passu with Government demands, rather than ordinary creditors not knowing, at the end of the day, what is left with which to pay the pensions?
    Maria Eagle: That is one of the most distressing aspects of the winding up of pensions—apart from the fact that it occasionally takes far too long. Suggestions in the Green Paper about the time it takes have been welcomed throughout the House, and outside. People are often left not knowing what percentage of their original pensions they will be left with.
    This is a crucial challenge. Proposals in the Green Paper for assets to be shared more fairly when schemes are wound up have been widely welcomed, but we need
    392
    to ensure that action is taken. We also need to speed up the winding up of schemes, and try to ensure that most of the assets of what may be small funds are not swallowed up in fees. We want savers to feel confident that it is sensible to put their money into pensions.
    Mr. James Arbuthnot: These are serious issues, raised by Members in all parts of the House. I know that the Minister recognises that. Is it not a shame that the Prime Minister appears not to recognise the seriousness of the issues, having failed to appoint a replacement for the Minister for Pensions in the last 60 days?
    Maria Eagle: May I say to the hon. Gentleman and others who have raised this matter in the House that the absence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) makes me the smallest Pensions Minister on the Government Front Bench? I can also assure the House that his absence has not delayed the work that is being done by the Department to deal with the Green Paper and the arrangements that need to be made. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that it has not delayed the date at which we shall produce our response to the Green Paper.

    Hebburn Offices
    Mr. Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on the future of his Department's offices in Hebburn. [117284]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The Hebburn offices accommodate 607 officials from the Department for Work and Pensions and the Inland Revenue. The lease on the building, which is held by the Inland Revenue, is due to expire on 23 June 2006. The Department for Work and Pensions is working with the Inland Revenue to identify suitable alternative accommodation in the Tyneside area. Alternative accommodation has already been found in Tyneside for more than 500 staff that are based at the Hebburn site. My hon. Friend will also be pleased to learn that the new Jobcentre Plus service in Jarrow will be rolled out by the end of this year. In addition, Gateshead and south Tyneside have been successful in gaining one of the new incapacity benefit pilot areas. That will be welcome news to local people, not least because it will give those who thought they had left the traditional shipbuilding and engineering industries for ever a chance to return to some of the jobs that are coming to the river.
    Mr. Hepburn: I am aware that more than one Government agency is situated in that building. However, as the Minister stressed, many hundreds of south Tynesiders' jobs are in that building, and the closure will have a massive, adverse economic impact on the local Hebburn shopping centre. Will he get together with his fellow Ministers to review the position and ensure that the offices do not close?
    Mr. Brown: I can give my hon. Friend two assurances. He knows that I want to do everything I can to help. First, I assure him that the jobs will not be lost: they are being relocated on Tyneside. Secondly, I realise the impact that this move is bound to have in the Hebburn

    393
    area, and if he would like a meeting with me and officials from the Inland Revenue to discuss what can be done to redevelop the site once the lease runs out, I would be happy to arrange a meeting with him to see whether we can find a constructive way forward for the people of Hebburn.

    Child Support Agency
    Bob Russell: How many people have been prosecuted for making false statements to the Child Support Agency. [117285]
    Mr. Richard Page: If he will make a statement on the Child Support Agency. [117286]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): Twelve people have been prosecuted under section 14A of the Child Support Act 1991. The Secretary of State's targets for the Child Support Agency for 2003–04 were published on 29 April in the agency's business plan. Those targets require a further improvement in performance, building on the progress made in recent years. I should add that the agency has more than doubled the amount of maintenance delivered from £300 million in 1995–96 to £770 million in 2001–02.
    Bob Russell: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that there are only 12 dishonest, lying fathers who, when filling in the forms, try to deprive their children of the maintenance that they should receive? Surely there is a case to be made for some serious prosecutions against fathers who cheat their children, so that they are made to pay. I am talking not about the fathers who go out of their way to provide maintenance for their children, but about those who lie and cheat. The Child Support Agency must know who they are.
    Malcolm Wicks: Certainly, we must be tough with those who lie and cheat, but the whole purpose of our powers is to ensure that people give the necessary information in the first place. We have tough powers, and we work closely with the Inland Revenue. When we think that the non-resident parent's lifestyle is not compatible with the income they tell us they receive, we can vary the order to make them pay up and pay more maintenance.
    Mr. Page: When will the new formula for calculating the maintenance be introduced for existing as well as new cases, so that there is equality of treatment for my constituents? Will the new formula in any way reduce the number of successful claims for maladministration, which have soared from 1,389 in 1997–98 to 12,007 in 2001–02?
    Malcolm Wicks: Where there is maladministration, and we try to cut that, it is right and proper that people have redress. I understand the question. As soon as we can bring all cases on to the new system, the better, but it is a massive operation. The new scheme only started in March. We will publish data on the first quarter in
    394
    July this year, but the House will have to be patient. Time will pass before we can make a decision on bringing on board the old cases.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: Would it be right to say that not all absent parents are fathers—there are mothers who are absent parents? Will my hon. Friend give some idea as to what progress is being made in ensuring that the third of children who are not receiving maintenance receive maintenance through Child Support Agency procedures? Given that the first eight weeks of payment are disregarded, will the absent parent now be responsible for making maintenance payments for the whole period from when the application is made by the parent with care?
    Malcolm Wicks: The purpose of our child support reforms, which, as we have noted, are currently for new cases only, is to shift the burden of emphasis from assessment, which will be much easier and based on a simple formula, towards enforcement. However, as I said, more maintenance is now going to parents with care—usually the mother but, as my hon. Friend says, sometimes it is the father. We have new powers and we are absolutely determined in all sorts of ways that parents, whatever their family situation, recognise their responsibility to bring up and to fund their own children.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Can the Minister comment on how much cross-checking is achieved between statements to the Child Support Agency and statements to, for example, the Inland Revenue and housing benefit, working tax credit and immigration entry clearance departments?
    Malcolm Wicks: Increasingly, we have powers and we have the authority of Parliament to cross-check data. Perhaps I will write to my hon. Friend about some of the details. We all know that while the great majority of self-employed people are honest, there can be a problem in compliance with maintenance. Since 1999, the agency has asked self-employed non-resident parents to provide copies of their tax return. That shows that we are moving in the direction that my hon. Friend is, I think, suggesting.

    Pension Service
    Annabelle Ewing: What plans he has to improve the operation of the Pension Service. [117288]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): The Pension Service is working well. It is geared to providing a high-quality personal service that puts the needs of pensioners first. Both its call centres and local service have been well received by pensioners. A key task is the delivery of pension credit from this October, for which preparations are well in hand. I will be publishing quarterly updates on overall progress during the run-up, the first in July and the second in October. The figures for October will be published in November and there will be regular monthly reports thereafter.
    Annabelle Ewing: I thank the Secretary of State for his answer, but has not centralisation of services led to

    395
    difficulties for pensioners such as those in my constituency, who have had to travel far greater distances to obtain comprehensive advice? Taking into account the imminent implementation of the pension credit, can he today give an assurance that we will not see a repeat of the recent tax credit fiasco?
    Mr. Smith: One of the things I sensibly did, anticipating the question, was to check whether the Dundee call centre, which serves the hon. Lady's constituents, had had any problems with its telephony. I was assured that it had not. Indeed, the system was working very well and at least 94 per cent. of calls got through first time, which is a good record for any call centre, whether in the public or private sector. On personal access, I know that there are surgeries every Thursday at the A.K. Bell library in Perth, on the first Tuesday of the month at the Kinloch Rannoch medical practice, and on the last Wednesday of every month in Crieff library, as well as at Kinross-shire day centre in Kinross on the last Tuesday of every month. If the hon. Lady or indeed other hon. Members have suggestions as to how the surgery arrangements for constituents offered by the Pension Service can be improved, I and the Pension Service will be very pleased to consider them.
    Miss Anne Begg: I have heard a couple of anecdotal stories about some pensioners who are having to wait up to three months to get their first pension payment once they reach the age of 60 or 65. I have written to the Department, and am awaiting a reply, on whether that happens only occasionally or is more widespread. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he speaks to people from the Inland Revenue to make sure that lessons are learned from the implementation of the child tax credit—particularly with regard to the scanning-in of documents, which sometimes leads to the misreading of information—so that such hiccups do not happen when the pension credit comes in?
    Mr. Smith: On my hon. Friend's first question, after the statement, I shall go back to the Department to find an answer concerning her correspondence. I do not believe that such delays should be in any way typical and I should be disturbed if they were. I shall look into the specific case that she raises.
    On the lessons for the roll-out of the pension credit, and our telephony, scanning-in and other services, I assure my hon. Friend that we are learning from other tax credits. That is one of the reasons why, in introducing the pension credit, we have been careful to phase the publicity and the projected take-up, so as to align them with the capacity that the system must have in place to meet demand. It is early days, but I have had positive reports of pensioners' experience in applying for the pension credit using the telephone system.

    Retirement (Financial Independence)
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What steps the Government are taking to promote financial independence in retirement. [117290]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We must renew the pensions partnership between Government, employers, employees and the industry to ensure that individuals feel that saving for their retirement is worth while and safe. The recent Green Paper sets out our proposals for greater security, simplicity and better information to promote pensions saving.
    Mr. Viggers: The Government have presided over a crisis in pensions provision. The savings ratio has halved and 40 per cent. of final salary schemes are closed to new members. Some schemes have collapsed completely, resulting in millions of 30 to 40-year-olds no longer looking forward to independence in retirement. Those are matters of fact. My question is this: is this the result of incompetence on an epic scale, or does it suit the Chancellor's tendencies towards socialism to have a rising two thirds of all pensioners on means-tested benefits?
    Maria Eagle: The hon. Gentleman's original comments gave too bleak an assessment. What he calls "means-testing", we call giving current pensioners some decency in retirement. The pension credit will end the weekly means test, while giving an extra £400 a year on average to half of all pensioner households, tackling pensioner poverty. His party is committed to keeping means-testing by abolishing the pension credit. He is committed to a weekly means test, pound-for-pound withdrawal of benefit and impoverishing today's pensioners as some kind of incentive to today's working-age people to save. After all, that was the policy of his party when it was in government.
    David Winnick: May I tell my hon. Friend about a 57-year-old constituent who, along with all the other employees of the company mentioned earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase), Chart Heat Exchangers, lost his job, after 23 years, and his pension? Can my hon. Friend understand the feelings of my constituent, who faces a retirement of absolute poverty because the company did not defend or pay into the pension scheme, as it promised? How would we as Members of Parliament like it if we were treated with such contempt when it came to our retirement?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right to reflect the feelings of his constituents, and I should be happy to meet him and other right hon. and hon. Members with constituents affected by this closure. If we are unable to renew our pensions partnership in order to have simpler pensions, to balance simplification and clarity, to help employers to deliver their pensions promises, to improve security and to ensure that members receive the benefits they have paid in for, our system of voluntary provision will not survive. That is why the Green Paper outlines our proposals. If we are not able to do that, we will have to be more radical and, as many hon. Members think, look to compulsion. The Pensions Commission is there to look at that if necessary.
    Mr. David Willetts: May I explain to the Minister that our policy is that pensioners should be less dependent on means-tested benefits and should enjoy

    397
    greater financial independence through more funded savings? That is very simple and it is what pensioners want. On the statement that we will hear from the Chancellor later today, 11 million pensioners who care about their independence will be worried that he is going to change the index used for uprating their benefits from the retail prices index to the new index: the harmonised index of consumer prices, known as HICP. Will the Minister give us and those millions of pensioners an assurance that there will be no reduction in the value of the uprating of their benefits if the index for measuring price inflation is changed?
    Maria Eagle: Pensions and benefits are linked to the retail prices index, which is a slightly different measure from the one that the Chancellor is considering changing in respect of these other matters. We have already committed ourselves to increasing pensions by more than the RPI for the rest of this Parliament, as the hon. Gentleman knows. There is no question of any of the changes that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor might deal with later, to which the hon. Gentleman refers, having an impact on that.
    Mr. Tony McWalter: Can my hon. Friend give any help or succour to Mr. Humphrey, a constituent of mine whom The Guardian named on Saturday, and who was part of a delegation that marched to Downing street yesterday? Having worked for a company called Dexion in my constituency, he was looking forward, at the age of 58, to a pension of £150 a week. That pension has been slashed by 80 per cent. to £30 a week. Does my hon. Friend accept that, if she cannot give any comfort to people in that position, surely those who are responsible for such dreadful administration of a pension scheme should be brought to book somehow?
    Maria Eagle: Cases such as this, which Members have come across in various situations in their own constituencies, have ensured that we have had to look at how to renew the pensions partnership. Unless we can have better safety and security, people simply will not save into pensions products in future. Of course, in such a situation everybody would be worse off. The Green Paper will introduce our proposals shortly, in response to the question of how to renew that partnership. If we do not do so, there will be problems in the future in respect of everybody.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Since the Government's assumed take-up of the pension credit for next year is 67 per cent.—an assumption that they themselves describe as ambitious—does it not follow that they expect non-take-up to be 33 per cent.? In other words, more than a third of our vulnerable pensioners will gain nothing at all next year from the pension credit.
    Maria Eagle: We want everybody who is entitled to pension credit to take it up as soon as they can get on the telephone and put in their applications. It is simply not the case that we want to place some form of ceiling or cap on those who are entitled to claim. Of course, we have working assumptions about what we want to get done within a certain time, but those are targets, not ceilings. We hope to outstrip them, and we want
    398
    everybody who is eligible for the pension credit to claim it. If hon. Members would get behind the Government, stop calling the provision means testing and urge their constituents to claim their entitlement, perhaps more might claim rather sooner.

    Housing Benefit (Midlands)
    David Taylor: What progress has been made on housing benefit pathfinders in the midlands. [117291]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We are testing a new standard local housing allowance in 10 pathfinder local authority areas, starting from this October; one such area is Coventry. Public consultation by the Social Security Advisory Committee on draft regulations for the scheme ends today, and officials are working very closely with the 10 authorities to help set up the pathfinders.
    David Taylor: As is traditional for Back Benchers in pre-reshuffle fortnight, I warmly congratulate the Government on the housing benefit pathfinder initiative for private sector tenants, which will undoubtedly drive down fraud and widen choice and personal responsibility. Can I point out, however, that three-quarters of housing benefit cases are tenants of local authorities or registered social landlords? When do the Government expect to roll out the new approach to embrace those millions of cases? Will they reflect on authorities such as my own, North-West Leicestershire, which has one of the best track records in the midlands for processing housing benefit? How can we learn from such authorities?
    Malcolm Wicks: It is right to embark on a radical reform of housing benefit, so that we can empower tenants and give them greater choice in their local communities. There are some difficulties and questions, which is why we are running a pilot for the private rented sector in 10 areas and evaluating it carefully. Yes, we do want it to apply in the social rented sector, and I hope that, before too long, where conditions allow, we will pilot the scheme in a social rented sector area as well.

    Incapacity Benefit Claimants
    Mr. John Randall: What the impact is on an incapacity benefit claimant of the receipt of an armed forces pension. [117293]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): Armed forces pensions paid on cessation of service, rather than because of disablement in service, are treated in the same way as other occupational pensions, whereby the first £85 of income is totally disregarded and only 50 per cent. of the excess is taken into account. However, basic war pensions, paid because of disablement in service, are completely disregarded and do not affect incapacity benefit. Incapacity benefit is intended to provide a source of income for sick and disabled people of

    399
    working age. We believe that it is therefore right to take some account of income from their occupational pensions.
    Mr. Randall: Does the Minister agree that for this particular category of person, that particular means-testing is the most mean-spirited of them all and should be got rid of?
    Mr. Brown: We are in danger of repeating the exchange that took place during the Department for Work and Pensions questions in February. The fact remains that we disagree on the matter, but I re-emphasise the point that basic war pensions, paid because of disablement in service, are completely disregarded.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Having heard the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle) trying to say that means tests do not really take money away, is this not yet another example of a nasty little means test invented by the Government? The only redeeming features are that in this particular case it hits a relatively small number of people, albeit people who have served the Crown, and that it appears not to be characterised—a rather greater redeeming feature—by the same administrative shambles that has already hit the Chancellor's child tax credit and is doubtless about to hit the Minister's own Department's pension credit in the autumn.
    Mr. Brown: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's analysis. Those who have served the armed forces and have occupational pensions are being treated no differently from anyone else. It is more likely nowadays that people leave the armed forces early and move into some other walk of life. It is right to treat them the same way as anyone else. If the hon. Gentleman is committing the Conservative party to repealing the measure, will he clarify how extensively the party intends to act and how much money it intends to spend?

    Antisocial Behaviour
    Vera Baird: What plans his Department has to tackle antisocial behaviour through Housing Benefit sanctions. [117294]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We are determined to tackle the antisocial behaviour that brings misery and disruption to so many of our constituencies. We are interested in the idea that was first floated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). People have rights, but they also have responsibilities. On 20 May my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State wrote to a range of organisations seeking their views on the introduction of a housing benefit sanction against antisocial behaviour. We will consult communities on housing estates and the victims of antisocial behaviour. I hope that all hon. Members will also consult their communities. We await the responses to the consultation before setting out our specific proposals.
    Vera Baird: How can a scheme be devised that does not punish people in the household who are not the
    400
    perpetrators and have no control over the perpetrator? The Minister will be aware of the probable links between antisocial behaviour by adult males and domestic violence. Secondly, is the Minister going to devise equally intrusive punishments for those who are not on benefits?
    Malcolm Wicks: Of course, we have the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill before the House at present, which will introduce several powers, and that will be another weapon in that armoury. We are consulting on that, because any measure has to be practical and we must have regard to human rights, including in those situations that my hon. Friend describes. However, when a victim has to become homeless—I know of such a situation in my constituency of Croydon, North—to get away from the bullies, I am interested in the rights of the victims, not only the rights of the perpetrators.
    Andrew Selous: Is the Minister aware of the extreme frustration felt by many of my constituents, who daily suffer antisocial behaviour and who—to make their lives tolerable again—want their local authority housing department and other social landlords to have more powers at their disposal?
    Malcolm Wicks: Yes, I am aware of that and of the hon. Gentleman's support for the measure. I am also aware that we would have had a private Member's Bill on the subject on the statute book now, if it had not been blocked by the Liberal Democrats, who are more on the side of the thugs than of the victims. We want to introduce enforceable powers that have regard to the rights of those members of the problem household who are innocent, but address the problems of those people who are sick and tired of the neighbour from hell making their lives a misery.
    Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is not one of the problems caused when local authority tenants live cheek by jowl with private tenants, perhaps of those people who have bought former council houses? There is no sanction on the landlord of a former council house to control what sort of tenant he takes and how they are treated. As long as the landlord gets the housing benefit, he does not care a damn about the people who live next door.
    Malcolm Wicks: We have to be aware that just as there is a small minority—albeit an important number—of rogue tenants, there are also rogue landlords, who do nothing to control the behaviour of tenants or to repair property and simply claim the housing benefit—
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: Rogue elements!
    Malcolm Wicks: Well, some of us take the subject seriously, as do our constituents. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced new powers to bear down on abuse in the privately rented sector.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I suspect that every hon. Member, like the Minister and myself, has constituents who have had to flee their homes because of such dreadful behaviour. It is more than a year since the Prime Minister said at Prime Minister's questions that he approved of action to address that. He said that the vast majority of people in this country will support the idea that people who get benefits from the state owe some responsibility in return. Why is it that the Government refused to give time to the Bill introduced by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field)? The Minister said that a Bill on the issue is before the House, so why have the Government not put such powers in it? Above all, why are they only just starting a process of consultation, 14 months on?
    Malcolm Wicks: The hon. Gentleman is being unfair for once, which is unlike him. We did our best to amend my right hon. Friend's private Member's Bill. We spent many hours in Committee trying to get it right, with the help of Conservative colleagues. However, despite broad support, it was talked out by the Liberal Democrats on a Friday morning. We need to turn principle into proper practice, and it is right to consult on that, including with the victims.

    Employers' Liability Insurance
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the future of employers' liability insurance. [117295]
    The Minister for Work (Mr. Nicholas Brown): The first stage report of the Department's review of employers' liability compulsory insurance was published on 3 June. The report sets out a series of actions including the scrutiny of industry service standards, especially renewal periods; a move towards fairer risk-related premiums to reward those with strong health and safety records; and the development of self-assessment packages to enable businesses to better manage risks. In the longer term, the Government will further evaluate the evidence for separating long-term occupational disease from accident risks, focus on legal costs and give rehabilitation a more central role in the UK compensation system.
    It is worth making progress on all of those issues and Ministers will report on progress that has been made and any further steps we intend to take in the autumn.
    Mr. Dismore: I am sure that my right hon. Friend would agree that the best way to reduce premiums is to stop people getting unnecessarily injured at work in the first place. However, I am pleased that he has indicated a commitment to rehabilitation, because if people can return to work more quickly that is a good way of cutting the cost of employers' liability premiums. Will he discuss with the Secretary of State for Health what can
    402
    be done to improve rehabilitation services and will he respond positively to the suggestion from both the TUC and the Association of British Insurers for a national rehabilitation leadership council to take that proposal forward?
    Mr. Brown: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend on both points. Discussions are under way with the Department of Health on what more can be done on rehabilitation. Following our Green Paper, rehabilitation pilots are under way and the location of all seven pilots has been announced to the House. The report itself has been welcomed by the CBI, the TUC and the ABI, and there is a real prospect of making constructive progress in that area.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: The report will be profoundly disappointing to many small businesses as it does little more than acknowledge the existence of a crisis of which they were painfully aware six months ago. Specifically, what were the results of the Minister's discussions with the Lord Chancellor about cutting legal costs? They account for 40 per cent. of all compensation and that is what has been driving up many of the insurance premiums.
    Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman is not being entirely fair. I urge him to look both at the analysis in our report and the complementary analysis in the report of the Office of Fair Trading, which was put into the public domain on the same day. There are no easy solutions. The hon. Gentleman is right to stand up for small businesses and to voice their concerns about rising premiums. Far and away the best means of getting premiums down is to relate premiums to risk—if the risk comes down, the premiums should come down—and to make the market work better. That is what the proposals in our report are designed to do.
    Mr. Derek Foster: My right hon. Friend knows, because I have discussed it with him, that a cluster of roofing contractors in Bishop Auckland employs about 1,000 people. They have complained bitterly to me about the increasing employers' liability premiums. I do not think that they will regard the Government's report as radical enough to deal with the situation. If we do not take the matter more seriously, I am afraid that many small businesses will go out of business.
    Mr. Brown: My right hon. Friend is right to stand up for small businesses in his constituency. We want the premiums to be stabilised and for there not to be undue burdens on small businesses. The way to do that is to reduce the risk and thereby reduce the premiums. The Health and Safety Executive is working on a self-assessment tool, which is designed to help small and medium-sized businesses in that situation. Some longer term work needs to be taken forward and it is the Government's intention to bring the discussions with the industry to a conclusion in the autumn. I very much hope that we shall be able to produce something that is of practical assistance to my right hon. Friend's constituents.
    Mr. John Butterfill: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that not only small, or even medium-sized businesses but local authorities, too, are in a dire situation? The Local Government Association tells us that only three underwriters are now prepared to underwrite this type of business. That situation has largely come about because of no win, no fee and the chasing after business by unscrupulous solicitors. There may be a need not just for adequate risk assessment, but also to cap liability, as has been done in some other sectors, so that those engaged in proper risk management will not incur an unlimited amount of liability. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. There is far too much noise in the Chamber. It is unfair to Members who are here for Question Time.
    Mr. Brown: Partly for the reasons that the hon. Gentleman sets out, we are continuing our discussions with the industry on the vexed question of long-term risks and reasonably carrying the burdens that arise from them, but this is quite a complex issue and the analysis in both reports shows that there is no general failing in the marketplace and that the increase in premiums has not been universal across the board. The analyses also show that, by and large, insurance is available, although at a price, and the further work is intended to try to stabilise the price.

    Jobcentre Plus
    Judy Mallaber: What the role will be of child care partnership managers in Jobcentre Plus districts. [117296]
    The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Mr. Andrew Smith): We have appointed child care partnership managers in every Jobcentre Plus district. They work with local authorities, child care providers and employers to ensure that Jobcentre Plus staff can give parents the child care information that they need to enable them to take up work.
    Judy Mallaber: I am delighted that Derbyshire's child care partnership manager has just taken up his post. What guidance and help is my right hon. Friend giving to ensure that the necessary information is exchanged, working with the early years partnerships, to fill the gaps in provision for parents who seek to take up employment? Will he undertake to consider how Jobcentre clients themselves can gain access to some of the new opportunities to enter child care as a profession?
    Mr. Smith: Yes. My hon. Friend has very succinctly summarised the new Jobcentre Plus child care partnership managers' remit, which is specifically to work with the early years development partnerships in the way that she suggests to ensure a good flow of information between all the parties necessary, so that there is improved child care provision, as well as improved rates of movement into jobs. Yes, they will specifically work to ensure that a greater proportion of Jobcentre Plus clients can fill the expanding number of vacancies in the child care sector.

    Pension Credit
    Ann McKechin: What progress his Department has made towards the introduction of the pension credit. [117297]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): Good progress. The Pension Service has already written to those in about 1.8 million pensioner households who currently receive the minimum income guarantee to tell them that they will automatically transfer to pension credit. This month, 45,000 mail packs a week are being set out, inviting pensioners to apply before October and advance applications are now being taken on a freephone application line.
    Ann McKechin: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. I welcome the introduction of the new pension credits, which will benefit many constituents in my area, but, as she will be aware, a significant number of elderly people are unable to look after their financial affairs, so what discussions has she had with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Executive to ensure the maximum take-up of that very valuable benefit?
    Maria Eagle: I have had no such discussions, but the Pension Service is involved in discussions about take-up throughout the country with local partners, local government and the Scottish Parliament. We are anxious that as many people as possible take up their entitlement to pension credit, not least because, for the first time, it will provide a reward for saving instead of penalising it, and those pensioner households who are entitled will receive an extra £400 a year on average.
    Mr. David Willetts: With the greatest respect to the Minister, can I tell her and perhaps the Prime Minister how much we have missed the ebullient presence of the former Minister for Pensions during Question Time today? Does she think that not having a Minister for Pensions has had any significant effect on the performance of her Department?
    Maria Eagle: Well, of course, we are all working hard, as one might expect, to make up for the work load of my right hon. Friend the former Minister for Pensions, who was well known in the Department for working from noon—[Interruption]—from morning till noon, till night, day in, day out, so I can assure the hon. Gentleman that things have not been easy, but I hope that no one will have noticed my right hon. Friend's departure; that has certainly been the aim of those of us seeking to cover his efforts.
    Mrs. Louise Ellman: Does my hon. Friend have any plan to run take-up campaigns for pensioners generally? What assessment has she made of Age Concern's recent survey, which shows that pensioners in Liverpool are among the poorest in the country?
    Maria Eagle: My hon. Friend is right. We have plans with all our local partners, including Age Concern, to maximise the take-up of pension credit entitlements. We want to ensure that all those who are entitled take up

    405
    pension credit. To the extent that our local partners, such as Age Concern in Liverpool, can help us to achieve that, we will work very closely with them to ensure that people do so.

    Income Support Fraud
    Mr. Edward Leigh: What effect the human resource initiatives outlined in the Government's response to the Public Accounts Committee's 55th report of Session 2001–02 on fraud and error in income support had in reducing the variations in performance between local offices. [117299]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks): We are continually striving to improve our performance in tackling fraud and error. As the latest results cover only the period up to March 2002, it is too early to gauge the impact of training and other measures on reducing performance
    406
    variation across regions. Overall, we are making excellent progress in tackling fraud, having reduced it by 24 per cent. against income support and jobseeker's allowance since 1998—a saving of £230 million.
    Mr. Leigh: Is the Minister proud of the fact that year after year the Comptroller and Auditor General qualifies the accounts of his Department because of gross inaccuracies in them? We are in the 13th year of its accounts being qualified. One of the reasons for these inaccuracies is the level of experience and high turnover of staff, particularly in London and the major cities, where inaccuracies are twice the national level. What is he doing to rectify this situation?
    Malcolm Wicks: We are not proud of that, we are working hard with the National Audit Office to move away from it, and I recognise the seriousness of the hon. Gentleman's point. On the main question, however, I am proud that we are winning the war against the fraudster and saving the public's money: money that the public want spent on education and hospitals and not on crooks and criminals.

Economic and Monetary Union
3.31 pm
The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. For many decades, Governments formed from parties on both sides of the House have made the case for Britain's engagement in the European Union. It is right that at every point we show that every decision that we make on Europe is made in the British national economic interest.
Today, therefore, I will set out the following: first, the economic context for the euro decision; secondly, the case in principle, in the national economic interest, for membership of the euro; thirdly, the detailed conclusions of our assessment; and finally, the policy changes that our country must now make.
Let me start with the economic context. Since 1997, every economic decision of this Government has been designed to build and then entrench stability in order to achieve for Britain high and stable levels of employment and growth. That commitment to put stability first led us to adopt a new fiscal and monetary regime, to make the Bank of England independent, and to cut debt substantially, and it has given us low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment. That commitment to long-term stability, growth and employment is the foundation of our decisions today.
Central to the pursuit of stability, growth and employment by Governments of both parties has been our membership of the European Union. Our assessment shows that Britain's trade with the European Union has grown from just over 40 per cent. of our total trade when we joined to 55 per cent. today.
Membership of the European Union is central to stability, growth and employment for another reason. Just as Britain benefits from being part of Europe, so, too, Britain stands to benefit from an enlarged Europe that is more integrated in the global economy—globalisation increasingly moving Europe away from an exclusive trade bloc to a Europe that must look outwards, not least to the USA, and a Europe that, to meet global competition, must liberalise and reform.
Therefore, in addition to our decisions that I will announce on the euro today, we will also make proposals that, by reducing tariffs, regulatory and competition barriers to European Union-USA trade, will fulfil our objective of a fully effective transatlantic economic partnership between Europe and the USA. Following the joint declaration of all EU Finance Ministers placing, for the first time, labour market flexibility and structural economic reform at the heart of the new economic policy guidelines for Europe, the Government will later this week publish our further proposals for economic reform in Europe.
I have no doubt that an enlarged Europe pursuing, like Britain, economic reform, and, like Britain, modernising fiscal and monetary policies, will be conducive to British stability, growth and employment. I believe that, around that, a modern pro-European consensus can be built in Britain.
It is in this context—with stability the foundation and our membership of the European Union central to our economy—that we must decide whether joining the euro
408
now is in the national economic interest. It is a decision of far-reaching consequence. Indeed—because it is irreversible—it is one of the most momentous economic decisions our country has to take, and it is one that must contribute to the attainment of stability, growth and employment.
When, in 1997, I set out the Government's position, I listed the potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency in transparency of costs, currency stability and in trade and long-term interest rates. The detailed work set out in the background papers published this morning allows us to set out these benefits with even greater precision.
The first benefit is lower transaction costs for business and consumers. We estimate these as worth around 0.1 to 0.2 per cent. of GDP—£1 billion a year—with the gains greater for small companies and the gains permanent. The second is diminished exchange rate volatility, with gains for both large and small companies especially in the manufacturing sector with, again, potentially the greatest gains for the smallest companies. The third benefit is greater cross-border trade and thus the potential for increased commerce and growth.
Our assessment makes it clear that, with the advent of the single currency, trade within the euro area has already expanded and that, with Britain inside the euro, British trade could increase substantially with the euro area—perhaps to the extent of 50 per cent. over 30 years.
I come next to interest rates. For 30 or 40 years, continental Europe has been able to combine stability with consistently lower interest rates than in Britain, to the benefit of both business and, of course, homeowners. Indeed, over the last 30 years, interest rates in Britain have had to be, on average, 3 per cent. higher than in Germany.
With Britain in the euro, business could benefit through greater access to a more integrated European capital market. And if, on the basis of sustained and durable convergence, we could lock in stability for the long term, business could see a cut in the cost of borrowing on a sustainable basis with a long-term boost to cross-border investment flows and to foreign direct investment in the UK.
So I can today confirm the principled case: our view that membership in a successful single currency would be of benefit to the British people as well as to Europe is strengthened by the results of our assessment.
While we argue the case in principle for joining, there are those who would rule out joining the euro for ever as a matter of dogma. They would rule out joining the euro even if it was in the best economic interests of our country. And that cannot be right for the future of Britain.
The Government's view is that, if the economic case is clear and unambiguous, then the constitutional issue, while a factor in the decision, should not be a bar to entry. And my conclusion is that if, on the basis of the five economic tests, membership of the euro is shown as good for sustaining British jobs, British business and British future prosperity, then it is economically right and in the national interest to join.
Indeed, our assessment on trade and output is that, inside the euro, UK national income could grow by a quarter of a percent a year, boosting, subject to

409
convergence, potential output and national wealth. That is worth up to £3 billion extra a year, delivering higher living standards and lower prices for consumers and households.
Just as there are risks of joining before a clear and unambiguous case has been demonstrated, so too there are risks in delaying these potential benefits once sustainable and durable convergence has been achieved. So from the assessment we have done, I have also no doubt about, first, the potential benefits to Britain and the British people of joining; secondly, the potential risks of delaying the benefits of joining; and, thirdly, the advantages within the euro area of greater influence over policy towards the euro and thus Europe.
Provided the crucial tests are met concerning the British economy, it is our intention to join. If on the basis of the tests we can make a clear and unambiguous case, this Government's view is that it is in the national interest to recommend to the British people to vote yes in a referendum to join the single currency. In short, if the economics are right for Britain, we should join.
So let me turn to the conditions that have to be met if we are to secure the potential benefits of the euro. We must be sure that there is cyclical and structural convergence between Britain and the euro area and be sure that there is flexibility to withstand stresses and strains. Indeed the more flexibility in the economy, the easier it is to tackle problems that arise from the divergence of business cycles.
Sustainable convergence means that the British economy can live on a permanent basis with euro area interest rates, able to advance our objectives of high and stable levels of growth and employment and sustained and stable funding of our schools, hospitals and other public services. The flexibility required is, as I said in 1997, sufficient flexibility to be able to adjust our economy quickly to any shocks that arise so that we do not put at risk these objectives.
So it is my duty to demonstrate in detail whether we have secured for Britain convergence, which is compatibility with our European partners that is sustainable—the first test—sufficient flexibility, the second test, and whether we can affirm conclusively and confidently to the British people that the potential benefits for investment, financial services and employment, growth and trade—the other three tests—are indeed realised.
The five tests are our stability guarantee: to meet them would ensure that we would not put at risk our economy or our public services. With the tests met, Britain in the euro can enjoy the benefits that I have outlined: greater trade, investment and employment. If we entered with the tests not met, at the wrong exchange rate, then just as with the exchange rate mechanism, we could see unemployment rise, public service investment fall and growth stall. The discipline of the five tests is to ensure that there will be no repeat of the experience when Britain joined at the wrong rate and at the wrong time, without either convergence or flexibility, and the potential benefits could not be realised.
In our 1997 assessment, we took the view that a period of stability was required to ensure that business cycles and structures converged sustainably and durably. We
410
concluded that UK interest rates were higher than in the euro area and remained higher because of structural differences, particularly in the housing market.
The new assessment that we publish today also shows that because of a lack of convergence with the euro area, joining in 1999—as some in this House advocated—would not have secured the stability inside the single currency that we have enjoyed outside it.
Cutting interest rates substantially to join the euro below the level that would have been right for Britain, and joining at an exchange rate that was too high for the long term, could have locked us into another cycle of stop/go economics. But I can tell the House that the consistent polices that we have pursued since 1997—an independent bank, new fiscal rules, lower debt, housing market reform and greater flexibility in labour, capital and product markets, including an independent competition commission—have contributed to meeting, quite comfortably, the Maastricht criteria for nominal convergence in a better position than some members were in 1997 and even are now, and are also leading toward the sustainable convergence and greater flexibility required by the five tests.
We can report that since 1997 there has been significant progress in achieving cyclical convergence. The short-term interest rate divergence between Britain and the euro area has fallen from 4 percentage points to 1.75 percentage points. Long-term interest rates have virtually converged at around 4 per cent. Over the last six years, there has been a weaker euro and a stronger pound. And the inflation rate has been on average 1.1 per cent. below the eurozone average for the last three years.
Over recent months, the euro exchange rate has strengthened against sterling and the dollar, and we are today publishing an independent study examining the sustainable level for sterling reflecting economic fundamentals.
The issue at the present time, however, is being sure that there is structural convergence that is sustainable for the long term; and we also have to be sure that, if real interest rates or business cycles diverge, Britain will have the necessary flexibility to sustain growth and employment.
We do not know whether or how shocks will occur, but there are risks for the UK, and let me give the House two specific examples—one from housing, one of inflation generally—of how in the new circumstances we would need to respond.
Take the challenge of an inflation rise particular to Britain from, say, the housing market. For a 1 per cent. rise in British inflation, the British interest rate would, other things being equal, tend to rise by 1.5 per cent. The real interest rate—that is, the interest rate after taking account of inflation—would therefore rise by 0.5 per cent. as we brought inflation under control and back to its target.
Inside EMU, Britain's economy would be one fifth of the euro area economy. A 1 per cent. inflation rise specific to the UK which would today lead to a British interest rate rise of around 1.5 per cent. would lead to a euro area interest rate rise of about a third of a per cent.—a real interest rate fall for the UK of around two thirds of a percent. As a result, real interest rates for Britain which ought to increase could actually decline.

411
And it is for this reason that, inside the euro, Governments need other forms of flexibility. If inside the euro Britain's inflation rose faster than that of the euro area, Britain would suffer a loss of competitiveness. So to restore lost competitiveness, a period of higher inflation than the euro area would have to be followed by a period of inflation lower than the rest of the euro area.
These two examples show why it is important to learn the lessons not just from the experience of the euro area but also from how states and regions adjust flexibly in the United States monetary union. In other words, we must be sure of sustainable convergence and that if business cycles do diverge or shocks arise, Britain has the price and wage flexibility—and the fiscal flexibility—to ensure stability.
Our assessment finds that obstacles to convergence do not lie in the provision of small business finance or large company finance, where, in fact, overall on business finance, the UK economy is found to be not more interest-rate sensitive than others.
The issue in housing, where we are more interest-rate sensitive, is not the attainment of identical market structures for housing with other countries—all countries have unique features of their market—but the fact that to deliver stability in Britain, the combination of house price inflation and volatility, and the impact of both on consumption, has generally led to interest rates higher than in other countries.
Indeed, most stop/go problems that Britain has suffered in the last 50 years under Governments of all parties have been led or influenced by the housing market. The volatility of the housing market and its potential for higher inflation is a problem for stability that we are determined to do more to address to produce greater stability and reduce the risks of inflation irrespective of the decision on the euro.
Because Britain has experienced difficulty in balancing supply and demand in housing, we propose to build on and extend the reforms already announced in respect of planning and supply. That includes simpler planning guidance, the speeding up of decisions, reserve powers to call in applications and the case for binding local plans—and, having asked Kate Barker to conduct a review of issues underlying the lack of supply and responsiveness of housing in the UK, we will bring forward further proposals in the pre-Budget report and Budget on how we can produce greater stability in the British housing market. And because Britain has had a different system of housing finance—just 7 per cent. of mortgages in the UK are at long-term fixed rates—we are learning the lessons from other countries where, for example in America, they securitise long-term fixed rate mortgages, and an independent review is now examining the structure of mortgage finance including the case for, and how we can help the development of, the long-term fixed rate mortgage market in the UK.
So further housing reforms will be put in place in the coming year—reforms right in any event for the British economy—that will help to ensure that by having a reduced propensity to house price inflation, which is in everyone's interest, stability can be further entrenched.
It is also right to consider a further change that is right in itself and will foster convergence—that is, a new target for domestic inflation. The advantage of the
412
current indicator of inflation—RPIX—is that it is known, well understood and has served us well. The advantage, however, of the internationally recognised index of consumer prices is that it is a better measure, it will improve the quality of our target, it is in line with best international practice, and it is used by every other G7 nation except Japan and by all our neighbours in Europe.
I turn from issues of convergence to issues of flexibility. To strike the right balance between fairness and flexibility in the pursuit of full employment, we have introduced a minimum wage and a tax credit system, which guarantees a national minimum income for single persons and couples over 25 and for families. So no one should fear that when they move areas or move jobs, they will lose those national income guarantees.
With this national framework for fairness in place, it makes sense to recognise that a more considered approach to local and regional conditions in pay offers the best modern route to full employment in our country. In addition, in the south-east, where professionals have benefited from London weighting and other arrangements, many low-paid workers have missed out. So in future we plan to publish data on regional prices and inflation; remits for pay review bodies and for the public sector, including the civil service, will, within their nationally determined frameworks, include a stronger local and regional dimension; and the reform of housing benefit will remove disincentives to work or to move. These measures—which will be put in place over the coming year—can make Britain, with already the lowest unemployment of all the main industrialised countries and 1.5 million more jobs since 1997, the most employment friendly country in the world.
The other form of flexibility is fiscal flexibility. Because of our history of stop/go, prudence dictates a cautious approach. Some countries have proposed new domestic procedures for faster and more effective adjustment of their fiscal policies inside the euro area. In the principles that we have applied to British monetary policy—to ensure stability and flexibility—we have insisted on clear symmetrical rules, well understood procedures, and enhanced transparency. Central to that is the open letter system, which is a means for dealing with potential pressures. To promote stability and flexibility in future, the same principles should be applied to any new arrangements for British fiscal policy inside EMU.
To ensure stability inside the euro area we will consult on the case for an open letter system on fiscal policy and a new and additional fiscal rule. We propose a regular fiscal stability report published on a pre-announced timetable to Parliament, ensuring that fiscal decisions are fully transparent and accountable and that they are made by Parliament; an assessment in the report of the gap between actual and trend output in the economy; and when actual output materially diverges from its trend, an open letter sent by the Treasury to Parliament setting out the Government's response. In that way, inside EMU, the principles underlying our monetary policy regime, which has been successful in delivering stability, would be mirrored in a similar fiscal policy regime.

413
Let me give the conclusions on each of the five tests, the full details of which, the benefits and the challenges, are set out in the Treasury's assessment published this afternoon and in the 18 documents published this morning, which cover in an open and full way all aspects of British economic policy, all of which are now available for open public debate.
With regard to convergence, on long-term interest rates we have made significant progress in lowering inflation expectations and establishing a platform of stability. There are grounds too for optimism about increasing compatibility of business cycles and market structures. Today, interest rates, which were 4 per cent. above those of the euro area, are 1.7 per cent. higher. Structural differences remain that could pose a risk to stability unless addressed, which they are by the proposals I will put forward today.
On flexibility, the assessment shows that considerable progress has been made to reform markets in the UK and euro area. Flexibility—right in itself for every economy—has improved in the British and European economies. The more flexibility in the economy, the easier it is to deal with problems when cycles diverge, and the better it is for our competitiveness. Yet as the persistence of volatility in inflation rates within the euro area demonstrates, we cannot be certain that there is as yet sufficient flexibility to deal with the potential stresses. It is for these reasons that we are making structural reforms that will bring increased flexibility to our economy.
On investment, the assessment shows that inside the euro there will be new opportunities for investment, particularly for foreign direct investment. At all times, by continuing to maintain macroeconomic stability and encouraging flexibility, the Government will continue to ensure that the UK retains our position as a magnet for foreign direct investment. We have taken particular account of the views, indeed the qualitative evidence, from Japanese, and other Asian, American and European investors, many of whom have said that membership would be beneficial and is important to them. There can be confidence that on the basis of sustainable and durable convergence, a successfully operating EMU and UK membership of it on the right terms would boost investment and foreign direct investment over the longer term.
On financial services, the assessment shows that in or out of the euro, UK financial services, wholesale and retail, are and will remain competitive. Future integration of financial markets inside the euro could promote the kind of diversity, flexibility and risk diversification seen in the capital markets of the United States of America, therefore making it easier for a more flexible Britain to win business throughout the euro area.
On employment, stability and growth, the fifth test, the potential benefits in increased trade and competition, and then in higher long-term levels of output and employment, are significant. Without sustainable convergence and sufficient flexibility, we would not realise the potential benefits for stability, jobs and investment.
414
It is because we will never put stability at risk that the tests we set were, and indeed are, high ones: namely, to show a clear and unambiguous case for British membership. So we conclude that the financial services test is met. We have still to meet the two tests of sustainable convergence and flexibility. Subject to the achievement of sustainable convergence and sufficient flexibility, the tests for investment and employment would be met.
So I am today announcing major reforms, right for the British economy: reforms that will be implemented over the next year and will greatly assist the process of achieving sustainable and durable convergence and the flexibility necessary for Britain to succeed sustainably within the euro zone and realise the potential for trade and investment.
Under Bank of England legislation, it is my duty to set the inflation target. I have written to the Governor of the Bank of England today stating that, subject to confirmation at the time of the pre-Budget report, I intend to change the inflation target at that time. The inflation target for Britain will be set on the consumer prices definition. I can confirm that pensions and benefits and index-linked gilts will be calculated on exactly the same basis as now. We have said throughout that we do not believe it necessary or right to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism.
I am asking by the time of the pre-Budget report for interim reports on the step changes we need in the planning and supply of housing and on the market for long-term fixed rate mortgages. I am today publishing for consultation our proposals for a new system within EMU of fiscal reporting to Parliament.
As part of radical reforms at a national, regional and local level, I propose that by next year almost all pay remits for public sector bodies will include a regional or local pay dimension. We will publish six-monthly reports on trends and progress in flexibility in labour, product and capital markets.
At this particularly uncertain time for the world economy—with adjustments only recently in the exchange rate—and when we do not know the future path of growth and inflation rates in Britain and Europe, it is right, prior to the point of transition and in the light of progress, to consider both the exchange rate and the balance of monetary and fiscal policy.
We will also continue to pursue our objective of a stability and growth pact that takes into account the economic cycle, debt sustainability and public investment, and we will seek reform of the European Central Bank. It is important that we resolve the uncertainties over the European Convention, and we will continue to pursue successfully our objective of tax competition and reject tax harmonisation in Europe. We will report back on progress in all these areas of reform in the Budget next year.
It is this resolve to implement far-reaching reforms in our economy that is the practical and best expression of our intent. It is a reform agenda that is right for Britain's economic interest and right to help meet the five tests: a reform agenda on which I believe there is a realistic prospect of making significant progress over the next year.

415
The Government believe that the implementation of these reforms, right in themselves, would help towards sustainable and durable convergence and flexibility, so that we can, within the euro area, achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment and deliver our objectives for public services.
We will report on progress in the Budget next year. We can then consider the extent of progress and determine whether on the basis of it, we make a further Treasury assessment of the five tests, which, if positive next year, would allow us at that time to put the issue before the British people in a referendum.
I can announce the publication of the draft referendum Bill this autumn; the introduction of further paving legislation for additional departmental allocations for preparations, and the publication today of the full and complete version of the British national changeover plan, which sets out the possible timetable for a changeover, its management, and the impact on consumers, business, financial services, the voluntary sector and the public sector.
I propose Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish preparation committees, which will examine local, regional and sectoral preparations. I am also asking representatives from consumer organisations, local authorities, the voluntary sector and the regional development agencies to join the standing committee on euro preparations.
I will publish a detailed report on euro preparations in government, the public sector and across the economy this autumn. I will shortly issue guidance to local authorities on preparation. The publication of the changeover plan will lead to a period of information and discussion in each region and nation of the country, Including in each constituency.
So, in this statement, we strengthen our commitment to and support for the principle of joining the euro and show that the gains to the country and to our businesses are greater than anticipated.
We have shown how financial services would benefit from membership of the euro. We have shown how, with sustainable convergence and flexibility, investment can benefit from membership of the euro. We have shown how, with convergence and flexibility, employment can benefit from membership of the euro. We have also shown the critical importance of achieving sustainable and durable convergence, and I have announced major reforms to be implemented in the next year.
At all times, we have and will put stability and the national economic interest first. We have set out the real benefits to Britain of membership of the single currency; we have shown that, with the achievement of sustainable convergence and flexibility, all five tests could and can be met. We have also laid down the concrete and practical steps that we will follow.
Those radical steps set out a new direction for reform and the clear path ahead for Britain. With a programme of economic reform benefiting Britain, I believe that a modern, long-term and deep-seated pro-European consensus in Britain about Britain's role in Europe and Europe's role in the world can and will be built in our country.
I commend the statement to the House.
Mr. Michael Howard: I draw attention to my declaration in the Register of Members'
416
Interests, and acknowledge that the 1,738 pages of background papers—not the Chancellor's statement or assessment—were made available at 9 am this morning. The Chancellor generously gave us six and a half hours to read them, in sharp contrast to the 480 hours that he gave his Cabinet colleagues. I am not sure whether that reflects the Chancellor's contempt for the intelligence of his Cabinet colleagues or his admiration for the intellectual abilities of the rest of the House.
The
"time of indecision is over."—[Official Report, 27 October 1997; Vol. 299, c. 588.]
The Chancellor said that about the euro six years ago. He said that it was time to "establish clear national purpose", to show "economic leadership" and to "make … hard choices". He said that divisions led to "indecision" and "inconsistent and unclear" policy. How refreshing it must be for the British people, after hearing those words, to see the Chancellor and his colleagues producing such decisiveness, clarity and leadership.
To be fair, Ministers are speaking with one voice today. They are united in common purpose, with only one objective: to paper over the cracks that have riven them in the past few weeks. Is it not clear from any objective reading of the evidence, including the 18 volumes that we have been given today, that joining the euro would damage our prosperity, destroy jobs and lead to an irreversible—the Chancellor's word—loss of control over our economic policy? That is certainly our view; it is also the view of the clear majority of the people of this country.
Today's statement is not the result of any real assessment of Britain's national economic interest. It is a result of the frantic efforts by the Chancellor and the Prime Minister to cover up their differences. After all, that is why the five tests were thought up in the first place. We all know that they were written on the back of an envelope in the back of a taxi to fix the damage done by the Chancellor's spin doctor in the back of the Red Lion pub. It was a four-pint briefing, which led to a five-point plan that has just given us a six-year runaround. And what a runaround it has been.
Ministers could not even agree on what question they had to answer. The Leader of the House—that rogue element in the Cabinet—said that the five tests were to determine when we should join the euro; three days later, the Foreign Secretary said that they were to determine whether Britain should join. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said that there should be a sixth test. The Chancellor said that the economic assessment would be decisive. The Prime Minister's spokesman said that an assessment was not a decision. Indeed, the Prime Minister was so determined that the Treasury view would not prevail that he thought the unthinkable: he suddenly saw the merits of Cabinet decision making. There is a first time for everything.
The Prime Minister will pay any price to do down his Chancellor. There they sit, united in rivalry, each determined to frustrate the other, to scheme against the other and to do the other down. So there is no clarity in policy and no consistency of purpose, and each of them is the loser. The Chancellor is losing, the Prime Minister is losing and, much more importantly, the British people are losing. The Government's ability to deliver has

417
broken down on health, on education and now on the euro. Blair goes one way, Brown goes the other way, and bang goes the third way, lost in conflict, compromise and confusion. No wonder so little ever gets done under this Government. That is the price that we are paying for the fault line at the heart of this Government.
What a humiliation today's announcement is for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Was it not he who said that there was no reason to keep the question open or to look at it again in this Parliament, that there was no need for another assessment and that we certainly should not have a referendum in this Parliament? He told us again today, as he did in 1997, that the results of the tests would have to be clear and unambiguous before we could join, but the permanent secretary to the Treasury has told us that the economics can never be clear and unambiguous, and the incoming Governor of the Bank of England has said that we would need 200 or 300 years of data to find out whether business cycles have converged.
What would have happened if the 18 volumes of data that we have been given today had shown that the tests had indeed been passed? How on earth are we to know whether a similar assessment next year, or in five or 10 years' time, would reach a similar conclusion? If the data change in one direction, how can anyone know that they will not change back again? If, at any particular moment in time, our growth rate, inflation rate or interest rates are at similar levels to those in the eurozone, how do we know whether that convergence is permanent? Might it not be because our economies were like ships that pass in the night, coming together for a moment before moving off in different directions?
The Chancellor predicted that trade with the European Union could grow by as much as 50 per cent. over 30 years. Will he confirm that his own Department's reports conclude that improved levels of trade are totally dependent on sustained convergence, which has not been achieved? Will he confirm that other economists have challenged his conclusion in the academic studies published today by the Treasury? Will he confirm that the author of one report that supports his assertion points out:
"any extrapolation of my results to EMU may be inappropriate since most currency union observations are for countries unlike those inside euroland"?
Will he confirm that that expert's assumptions, on which the Chancellor relies, are based on studies of currency unions involving Angola and Mozambique, Burkina Faso and Chad, Vatican City and San Marino, and Tuvalu and Tonga? The Prime Minister is obviously surprised by that. It is one of the reports that he had not got around to reading.
In 1997, the Chancellor said that the most critical test was convergence, and today he was forced to admit that it had been failed. One of the Chancellor's documents is succinctly entitled "Analysis of European and UK business cycles and shocks". Its conclusion in paragraph 9.2 is clear: the UK cycle is more strongly correlated with that in the United States than with those in Europe. Indeed, not a single UK region is strongly associated with the European cycle. Astonishingly, there was no mention of that in the Chancellor's statement.
418
That is just one example of the gloss that the Chancellor has tried to put—the gloss that he has been obliged to put—on the studies that he has published today. He has given us his solutions, which are the solutions that we always get from this Government when the evidence does not suit their case: change the evidence, fiddle the evidence, distort the evidence. If the mortgage market in this country differs from that in the eurozone, change it, whether or not that is in the interests of British home buyers. If the inflation index in this country differs from that in the eurozone, change it, whether or not that is in the interests of British monetary policy. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us what independent advice he has taken about the abandonment of the retail prices index. He has a Retail Prices Index Advisory Committee; perhaps he will tell us whether he took its advice before abandoning the RPI.
How would either of those changes affect the conclusions of the Treasury's assessment, "Housing, consumption and EMU"? Paragraph 8.10, on page 86, states:
"deviations in UK interest rates from their appropriate level could lead to particularly large swings in the housing market … and hence in the wider economy in the UK".
It is true that the document on fiscal stabilisation suggests, in paragraphs 6.89 and 6.92, that fluctuations in the housing market might be damped, and sets out how they might be damped by an increase in stamp duty or by charging capital gains tax on residential property. Perhaps the Chancellor will tell us whether that is what he had in mind. Is he suggesting that the choice for this country, in the euro, would be between even higher taxes and even more boom and bust? [Interruption.] Yes—more boom and bust.
The Chancellor has been forced to admit that the flexibility test has been failed as well. Indeed, according to his own assessment of the flexibility test, inflation volatility is very likely to increase inside the euro. Perhaps he will tell us whether that is why he is going to such lengths to make our economy less flexible. Perhaps he will also tell us what grounds he has for thinking that the test is more likely to be met by the time of next year's Budget, or in a year's time.
What of investment? Only last week Ernst and Young said that Britain's share of inward investment projects for the EU rose last year. It described euro membership as a
"bit of a damp squib as far as inward investors into Europe are concerned".
It is not surprising that the Chancellor has been forced to admit that that test too has been failed; but what grounds has he for supposing that it is likely to be passed by the time of the next Budget, or next year?
What of financial services in the City? Far from the City having been hit by Britain keeping the pound, the Bank of England says:
"The evidence indicates that, since the launch of the euro, the City has maintained its market share."
Why? As the Bank of England says:
"The City is a global financial centre, and not just a European centre."
That conclusion is reinforced by paragraph 7.8 of the Treasury study, "The location of financial activity and the euro." Why, in the face of all the evidence, does the

419
Chancellor insist that this test has been passed? Will he reassess it this time next year, or are the test results allowed to change only in one direction?
It is no surprise that the final test on jobs has been failed. At the moment, we can choose to have the same interest rates as the eurozone when that suits our needs. Why on earth should we be forced to do so when it does not? Why on earth should we accept the straitjacket of a one-size-fits-all interest rate when it is not the right rate for our economy? Competitiveness would be lost, growth would be hampered, jobs would be put at risk, and that will be just as true at the time of the next Budget and in a year's time as it is today.
Other countries have discovered these truths the hard way. As a former director of the Bundesbank said yesterday:
"The present Eurozone structure is devastating for Germany. And I am convinced the UK would be crazy to join—you should stay out for as long as I can foresee."
Is that not what we found with membership of the exchange rate mechanism? The Conservative party has learned its lesson from the experience of fixed exchange rates, but the Government have not, despite the fact that the present Chancellor of the Exchequer was calling for early entry to the ERM almost a year before we joined.
Today, the national economic interest took a back seat. As the Government dither, uncertainty is maximised. What does the Chancellor say to business leaders, such as the director general of the CBI, who said:
"The last thing we want is an annual reassessment."
David Frost, the director general of the British Chambers of Commerce, said:
"once the Euro verdict is announced, business would expect a period of stability on this matter for at least three years."
Ruth Lea of the Institute of Directors said:
"We need to know where we stand."
This is the Government who in opposition promised not to be "de-railed by … internal bickering" on Europe. This is the Government whose election manifesto in 1997 pledged that Labour would make a hard-headed assessment of Britain's economic interests rather than be "riven by faction". This is the Government who promised to "prepare and decide", but now it is not prepare and decide, it is not wait and see, it is just hope and pray. Today, they have not put off a referendum because they are against joining the euro, or because they think it will damage the national economic interest. They have not put off a referendum out of conviction. The only reason we are not having a referendum now is that they know they cannot win it.
Today's statement comes from a divided Government—a Government on the run. This whole exercise has been an exercise in deceit: the deceit that they had the national economic interest at heart; the deceit that they wanted an objective assessment of what this country needs; the deceit that they were united. It is time for an end to the deceit. It is time for an end to the duplicity. This is not the end of the beginning for this Government. It is the beginning of the end. The sooner it ends the better it will be for the national economic interest and for the British people.
Mr. Brown: When, by his own admission this afternoon, the shadow Chancellor was in the ERM
420
Cabinet and was the Secretary of State for Employment who lost 1 million jobs, how can he come to the House to lecture us about economic stability and putting the national economic interest first? The Conservatives joined the ERM with no assessment of investment, no assessment of jobs, no assessment of financial services and no assessment of home owners. Interest rates were at 15 per cent., inflation was at 10 per cent., 1 million jobs were lost, 1 million were in negative equity. Set that against our record, which is the lowest interest rates for 40 years, the lowest inflation for 30 years and economic stability, which they failed to achieve.
When the shadow Chancellor tries to give us his balanced account of the studies that were produced this morning, he fails to mention the benefits in transaction costs. He fails to mention that 55 per cent. of our trade is with the European Union. He fails to mention that we have 3 million jobs dependent on the European Union. He fails to mention the estimates of an increase in output as a result of membership of the euro. He fails to give a balanced account of the national economic interest. The reason for that is that he is against the euro on grounds of dogma, even if it is in the national economic interest to join. Even if it were good for jobs, he would refuse to join. Even if it were good for investment, he would refuse to join. [Interruption.] Oh, yes. He said in 1997 that he was against the euro in principle. When he was asked for his dispassionate judgment using the non-prejudiced mind of a lawyer, he said that it would be crazy to join. Far from being open to argument and debate, far from being prepared to look at the studies dispassionately, all he wishes to show is that, to his prejudiced mind, we should not join the euro at any time, ever.
I heard the shadow Chancellor on television yesterday morning. He called for a referendum on the euro immediately. When he was asked whether he would abide by the result of the euro referendum, he could not give a straight answer, so we know what the agenda of the Conservatives is. When the Leader of the Opposition was on the Frost programme yesterday morning and was asked whether he would be staying in the European Union, he could not give a straight answer either. They do not want just to stay out of the euro. They want to get out of the European Union. It is time that we fought the prejudices and the myths of the anti-Europeans on the Conservative Benches and built a pro-European consensus in this country.
On housing and taxation, I do not think that we on the Labour Benches can take any lectures from the party that put up VAT on repairs from 8 to 17.5 per cent. Nor can we take a lecture from the party that put VAT at 17.5 per cent. on house extensions. Nor can we take a lecture about the use of a regulator from the party that when in government used a stamp duty regulator in the early 1990s. If the shadow Chancellor does not believe that volatility and instability in the housing market is not a cause for concern that should be dealt with, again, he is failing the national economic interest.
The shadow Chancellor asked whether all the five tests would be reassessed next year. As I said in my statement, if he had heard me properly, the answer is yes, if the review in the Budget says that we should have an assessment. It will be an assessment of all the five tests. As regards the figures for investment, the shadow Chancellor, again to make his point that he is against the

421
euro in principle, quotes selectively from one set of figures about projects, when the published figures for last year show that there are issues to be dealt with in terms of inward investment, and that is what we are doing.
What the shadow Chancellor and the whole of the Conservative party have revealed by their failure to take these issues seriously today is that, when it comes to the question of stability and instability, we are the Government of stability, they have no policy to avoid instability. When it comes to a positive attitude to Europe, we are the party of Europe, they have shown themselves to be wholly against Europe. When it comes to issues of the future, we are the party of the future, they are the party of the past. They spent 18 years in government. They will spend 18 years now in opposition.
Matthew Taylor: It was nice to see the Chancellor return to form in responding to the Conservatives, and it was noticeable how confident he was in doing that. He was rather less confident in presenting his own policies, perhaps because there may have been a return to form there; saying no but dressing it up as a warm "almost yes", as if we were poised at any moment to join.
Two assessments, three national changeover plans, 18 studies, 2,000 pages, endless spin; but still we have indecision. The Chancellor said that it was prepare and decide. Actually, for the Prime Minister, it was wait and see, and the Prime Minister still has to wait and see. I take it that the Chancellor remains the guardian of the tests. Yet he says that he is in favour of the principle of joining, and today's studies show why.
Joining the euro means more growth and better-paid jobs, on every range of assumptions. It could save an average mortgage payer £15,000 over a 25-year mortgage—£50 a month. It would mean lower prices and the end of rip-off Britain: televisions, computers, mobile phones, perfumes, shampoos, toothpaste and even chips are cheaper in France and Germany. That is why three out of the five tests clearly have been passed—jobs, investment and the City.
As for convergence and flexibility, there are now three positions on the euro. "Never join" is the Conservatives' position, which would make the economic assessments irrelevant. There would be a long response, but no point to it; the assessment would not matter, as we would know the Conservative's answer: "We will not join the euro ever, no matter the economic consequences for this country."
The second option is "wait and see", the old Conservative position and the policy of the last Conservative Prime Minister. In truth, it has been the position of the Chancellor over the last six long years, too. However, that left the Government taking no action for six long years while our share of investment fell, manufacturing collapsed and rip-off Britain continued to rip off Britons.
The third position is, "Yes, in principle". That means taking the action necessary to steer the economy towards joining. The last of those has long been the Liberal Democrat position, and, it seems, the Prime
422
Minister's position: to take the action necessary to meet the conditions for joining the euro to give us lower prices, higher growth and the increased jobs and incomes that the euro can bring. We want the Chancellor to take the action to get us there. That is the real test for the Chancellor; it is time for his indecision to be over.
Having heard all that the Chancellor had to say today, I must ask whether, if he wants the convergence and flexibility that he talks about, he will take the action to get it. Today, the Chancellor's warm words suggest that he will, and we welcome that. But staying out of the euro for so long has already had a cost, in higher prices, lower investment and lower exports. He set out some proposals for action today, but he did the same six years ago and nothing happened. He dressed up no as almost yes and nothing happened.
Will he clarify the timetable for proposing legislation for a referendum? Will the draft lead to a Bill before the next assessment, or before the Budget? When will we debate and legislate to allow the British people to decide at last? Will he set a target date for a referendum if progress is made by the next Budget? If his assessment at the Budget is to have another assessment—as he announced today—how long will it take for the assessment after the assessment after the assessment? There could be four assessments.
Will he enter negotiations with our EU partners on terms of entry—particularly the key issue of the exchange rate—before a final assessment and a referendum for the British people, or will they be asked to vote in the dark? Will he take action to end the boom and bust in housing beyond today's announcements, which are no more than a rehash of announcements made in the Budget? Such action is needed to help people in this country afford a home, whether or not we join the euro.
Just as in 1997, in truth the decision today was no, even if the words were warm. For six years, support in principle from the Chancellor has been all talk and no trousers. The time for indecision is over; warm words are not enough. On the question of whether the Chancellor is going to make progress on the decision—on whether this is really about action—the jury remains out. No wonder that throughout the Chancellor's statement, the Prime Minister looked so gloomy; he clearly has no better idea today than the rest of us about whether the British people will get the chance of a referendum on the euro this year, next year, the year after that, or at any date in the future. Beg my pardon—we do know one thing: the date. It is simply the year that is now missing from the Chancellor's assessment.
Mr. Brown: I am glad that the shadow Chancellor from Truro read more of the background documents than did the shadow Chancellor from Folkestone, although I do not believe that we referred in them to the cost of chips across Europe.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that housing reforms are absolutely necessary, whatever decisions are made about the euro, and I hope that his party and others will support us in the reforms that we are introducing.
The draft Bill on the referendum will be published in the autumn, and there will be paving legislation on expenditures that are to be incurred by Departments for euro compatibility systems.

423
On the hon. Gentleman's general point about wishing to join immediately, rather than waiting for the review and the further assessments of the tests, just as the Conservatives never want to join, there has never been a time in the past six years when the Liberals have not wanted to join, whatever the exchange rate, whatever the interest rate and whatever else is happening. Indeed, the leader of the Liberal party, who is missing this afternoon, said that we should have joined on the first date in 1999. If members of his party look at our assessment, they will see that the divergence in interest rates and in the exchange rate from a sustainable level was such that it would not have been right to join in 1999; indeed, it would have ignited the very stop-go problems that we have tried to get away from, and which occurred under the previous Government.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now accept that the five tests and our examination of them are a serious effort to look at all the economic challenges, as well as the benefits ahead. I hope that he will join us in attempting to address the challenges over the next year, and that when we introduce legislation to deal with the problems he will support us.
Mr. James Plaskitt: My right hon. Friend will know that in the Treasury Select Committee report that was published in April we highlighted several criticisms of the workings of the monetary policy arrangements in the European Central Bank. I was interested to see that six of those criticisms were reiterated in the policy framework document that was published this morning, so how will my right hon. Friend seek to secure maximum UK influence on ECB reform while we are outside the euro, and does he see convergence on monetary policy management as a precondition of eventual entry?
Mr. Brown: The Government are taking on board and examining very carefully all the points that my hon. Friend makes about the Treasury Committee's report. I applaud the work that he and other members of the Committee have done in identifying the challenges, as well as the benefits, of membership of the euro.
I define sustainable convergence as the ability to converge with the European area—in other words, that we can permanently live with euro interest rates at the same time as being able to advance our objectives of high and stable levels of employment and growth and the funding of our public services. That is why we are looking at putting in place reforms to the housing market, but we are not trying to seek structures in the British housing market that are identical to those in other countries' housing markets. What we are trying to do is to lessen the inflationary pressures that arise from the housing market. So, on convergence, I believe that we can make significant progress during the next period.
We will make proposals to the House on how we can create the flexible economy that is necessary to adjust to whatever stresses and shocks anise, so that we can get what I know my hon. Friend wants to emphasise: the potential benefits of the euro in terms of trade, in investment in the financial services industry as a whole, and, of course, in growth and output.
Mr. Kenneth Clarke: I welcome the Chancellor's reassurance that he still fully shares my
424
views on the single currency—that it is in Britain's interest to join as soon as the economic conditions are right. I did not advocate joining over the past five years because I believed that sterling was, until recently, overvalued.
The Chancellor urges us to wait. Am I right that his principal concern over convergence is the housing market, and can he assure us that his studies will not take too long, given that we have the same proportion of owner-occupiers in this country as the average across Europe? We are not the only country with flexible interest rates, and the mortgage market will respond when financial services markets are made universal across the European Union, so we should not wait too long on that account.
As to flexibility, I have already welcomed what the Chancellor said about the end of national pay bargaining in the public sector, but I trust that he is not going to make us wait until he has achieved that, in the teeth of resistance from his own Back Benchers, before taking a final decision. Surely we are already one of the most flexible economies in the European Union, and, unless he is going to erode our tax and regulatory advantages further than he already has, we should be able to withstand shocks of the sort that he described.
How near are we to satisfying the tests? Surely we must be very near. I look forward to Budget day next year, when he and I might at last begin to campaign together in support of the views that we hold in common, but that requires some courage of conviction and some exercise of judgment on his part.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the former Chancellor for what he said about the benefits of studies of the housing market and issues of flexibility. I believe that he is a late convert to the importance of the five tests. I welcome the fact that we can reach common ground on the problems that need to be dealt with if we are to secure sustainable convergence and flexibility.
On the housing market, the percentage of owner-occupation is not the issue. As the right hon. and learned Gentleman knows from his own experience—and, let us be honest, as the Conservative party knows to its detriment, from what happened in the late 1980s—the real problem is the inflationary pressures that arise, partly because of the wealth effect of housing and partly because of short-term interest rates, in the housing market and their effect on the whole economy. Those are the matters that we will examine.
I said in my statement that there was a realistic prospect of making significant progress during the next year. When we introduce proposals in October, we will deal with the inflationary problems that arise—and have arisen under all Governments—in the housing market. I would correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman: I talked about a national framework in pay bargaining. As London weighting and other issues relating to London and the south-east have shown recently, there must be a degree of flexibility in view of the different inflationary pressures, particularly from housing, in different parts of the country. I believe that there is currently a willingness to examine those issues, particularly when we have a framework for fairness in

425
the economy built around the tax credits. We can establish common ground and make significant progress over the next year.
Mr. John Hume: Does the Chancellor agree that the logic of a single market is a single currency? What is the meaning of a single market without a single currency? Let us imagine the largest single market in the world competing with us—the United States' single market—and what would happen if one of the states had a different currency. The logic of a single currency for a single market is powerful. Does the Chancellor agree that, since entering the euro, Germany's trade within Europe has increased by 18 per cent., whereas this country's has decreased by 6 per cent.?
Northern Ireland is the one region in the United Kingdom that has a border relationship with the eurozone, and people who live there know the difference that it is making to trade on our side of the border. About 88,000 employees in Northern Ireland are dependent on membership of the European Union, and 155,000 workers in Wales are dependent on it. I am quoting an in-depth study carried out by independent people. All the arguments show that we must join the euro as soon as possible for the benefit of all sections of our people.
Mr. Brown: I am glad to see my hon. Friend back in the House; I hope that his health is recovering. It is always a privilege to listen to him. He raises an important question about Northern Ireland's cross-border issues, which arise because the Republic of Ireland is in the eurozone. We have discussed those issues and tried to deal with the some of the problems, as well as the opportunities, that arise from that. He is right also to draw attention to the jobs that are dependent on our membership of the European Union; one of the failings of the Conservative party is not to recognise that 3 million jobs depend on the trade—imports and exports—that we have with the European Union.
On the individual issues that my hon. Friend raises, we learn from the experience of the United States as both a single market and a single currency. The US has much mobility between the states—more so than in the European Union—but the same issues of flexibility arise, and we will have to deal with them.
I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of the single market and the benefits and principle of the single currency. The assessment that we have done shows that there are risks as well as benefits, and it is the responsibility of Government to continue to consider how we can solve the structural and cyclical problems. We will report back to the House in the Budget next year.
Sir Michael Spicer: Last week, the Prime Minister told me that he did not know what the right rate of exchange was for entry to the euro, because he did not know what the circumstances would be. Since entry into the euro would be for ever, the
426
circumstances surely do not matter. The Chancellor said today that he knows what the wrong rate is: what is the right rate?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman can see the studies that we have produced today. One of them is a study by Professor Wren-Lewis, in which he gave his view of what the equilibrium exchange rate is at this point in time. It is the Government's view, as I said in my statement—to which I refer the hon. Gentleman—that it is right to consider the issue just before the point of transition. Governments outside a fixed exchange rate system have never predicted or announced the exchange rates that they favour. The issue will be dealt with just before the point of transition and it would be wholly irresponsible to announce an exchange rate today. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman would not expect me to do so, although I sometimes wonder why he asks all these questions about the detail of joining the single currency, given that he has made it clear that he is against it in principle.
Denzil Davies: As a former Treasury Minister in a Labour Government who, after a rigorous analysis, decided that it was not in the national economic interest to join the ERM, may I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his rigorous assessment of the five tests and the sensible conclusion that he has reached? However, he will remember that in addition to the five tests there was also a question about whether the euro was a successful currency. Given the problems of most of the euro area since the Maastricht treaty was signed, is it his view that the euro is a successful currency?
Mr. Brown: The euro has been a successful currency. It was introduced successfully when everybody said that it would not work. They said that it would not happen in 1999 and they said that it would not, technically, work, and it did. They then said that the euro was too weak against the dollar, but that position has reversed in the past few months. We now have a far stronger euro against a weaker dollar. The question for us, however, is not the value of the currency at a particular point in time, but whether we have the convergence and flexibility necessary to gain all the benefits of trade and investment that would come from being part of the single currency area. I agree with my right hon. Friend that the rigour of the assessment is a sign of whether we take the issues seriously. I am disappointed that the Conservative party seems to have no interest in taking seriously the rigorous assessment that we have made.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Do not the 18 documents, 1,700 pages and tens of thousands of words amount to the longest "don't know" in political history? May I caution the Chancellor against the mental gymnastics he was performing in his statement? I have seen the House cheer him and I have seen it howl at him, but I have never seen it laugh at him, as it did for parts of his statement this afternoon.
As far as the lack of analysis of the benefits to the economy of Scotland, Wales, the English regions and Northern Ireland is concerned, with the clear pointers to the benefits of output and employment through joining the euro, is there not a fair case for saying that the

427
economies of those areas of the country are being sacrificed on the altar of problems in the south-east England property market?
Finally, will the Chancellor tell us why he has suddenly made reducing pay for nurses, firefighters and policemen in Scotland, Wales and the English regions a condition of entering the euro? Does he really think that that will mobilise support for the single currency, or has he not bothered to tell the Prime Minister?
Mr. Brown: I thought that the Scottish National party spent all its time arguing for special Scottish rates and not for national and UK rates for wages. The idea that the hon. Gentleman now supports British rates and that there should be no separate Scottish rates seems to be a reverse for the Scottish National party from its previous position. The hon. Gentleman has spent most of his career arguing for a Scottish pound and for breaking away from the British pound, yet now he seems to be arguing that he wants the euro introduced and he has forgotten his policy for a Scottish pound. The Scottish National party has adopted a remarkable set of contradictory positions.
On labour market flexibility, there is a national framework of fairness that the hon. Gentleman and other Members should support. Not only is the minimum wage agreed at a United Kingdom level, irrespective of the costs of living in different parts of the United Kingdom, but the tax credit system means that people who move between jobs, especially those in low-paid jobs, have additional funds whether they are single, part of a couple, or part of a family. The hon. Gentleman should support that framework of fairness for the whole of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Stephen Byers: As someone who has discussed the issue with the Chancellor on several occasions over recent years, I applaud the positive tone that he struck this afternoon. Does he accept that although it is clearly right to delay a referendum until it is in the national economic interest to join a single currency, that does not prevent the Government from consistently setting out the benefits of joining the single currency in terms of more jobs, increased trade and higher investment? Given that that is the case, will the Government begin to go out and campaign, and convince the British people of the benefits of joining the single currency? Will they move away from the present position of prepare and decide to a more positive one of campaign and convince, and will the Chancellor, alongside the Prime Minister, lead that campaign?
Mr. Brown: When my right hon. Friend was Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, as well as when he was Chief Secretary to the Treasury, he was active in promoting the case both for Britain in Europe and for a single currency. He agrees with me that the economic conditions must be right—that has always been his position—and that the five tests must be observed. He would agree with me that the rigour that we have brought to the analysis of the five tests is not only important but necessary if we are to get the right decision.
I agree that it must be shown to the British people that there are benefits to joining in terms of trade, investment, the importance to the financial services and,
428
as a result, jobs. I also agree that, in the campaigns that he mentioned, we should tell the British people that the benefits are real and available to them, and that we have to solve the problems of structural convergence and flexibility to make the benefits possible. We will consider all those difficult issues over the course of the next year and report back to the House.
Mr. David Ruffley: In the interests of clearing up uncertainty in the markets, will the Chancellor tell us in which month next year he will re-run his assessment of the five economic tests?
Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman had followed my statement, he would know that we will report back and review the situation in the Budget. If the review shows that there is progress, we will decide whether to have a further Treasury assessment of the five tests. That will be contingent on the announcements that I make in the Budget next year.
Angela Eagle: In the evidence that the Treasury Select Committee took on the issue, we came across a significant worry, particularly among trade unions, that the stability and growth pact would put at risk the historic and very welcome investment that we are currently experiencing in our public sector. Will the Chancellor reassure them on that point?
Mr. Brown: The Government's position throughout has been that we would like to see a stability and growth pact that takes account of the three issues, and I believe that the previous Government took the same view. We have to take account of the level of debt. Countries with low levels of debt, such as ours, ought to be able to borrow more, particularly in difficult circumstances or in making public investment. Investment should be taken into account, and it should be realised that there is a distinction between investment for the future and current consumption. The economic cycle should be taken into account as well. In my view, other countries are gradually recognising that those issues are necessary for a successful stability and growth pact. There is considerable debate in the European Union, and I believe that, intellectually, we are winning that debate: the stability and growth pact must take into account those conditions. Of course, that is one of the issues on which I said I would report back to the House next year.
Mr. John Maples: If we were in the euro and found ourselves with a manifestly inappropriate interest rate, as do, for example, Germany and Ireland at the moment—in one case, it is too high, preventing economic recovery, and, in the other it is too low, failing to control inflation—what action would be available to the Chancellor to offset that? If he says, "Adjustments to fiscal policy", will he explain exactly how they affect monetary conditions, except in the medium to long term?
Mr. Brown: On convergence, the aim is to be able to live comfortably with the euro area interest rate—that is what sustainable convergence is about, and it is what we have looked at and are looking at in the five tests, and we have reported to the House on that—but we do not believe at this stage that that is the position. We believe,

429
however, that reforms are important, first, in the flexibility of the labour market, so that there is sufficient flexibility to respond if business cycles start to diverge. We believe that, as a back-stop, the monetary policy regime that we introduced, which is based on the open letter system, should be introduced for fiscal policy, so that we have a modern form of fiscal policy that can back up the stability and growth pact in the monetary union. At the end of the day, four flexibilities are available to the Government: exchange rates, interest rates, fiscal policy and flexibility in wages and prices markets. We are looking to greater flexibility in wages and prices and to greater flexibility in fiscal policy.
David Hamilton: Does the Chancellor understand that, when he talks about breaking national pay bargaining, he is also talking about breaking national wages and conditions for the lowest-paid people in this country? I for one would oppose such a move. Does he understand that national pay bargaining is there for the weakest in our country and, indeed, that it is protected? The danger of moving down such a road would be that the minimum wage would become the maximum wage in many areas, especially in deprived areas?
Mr. Brown: I must correct my hon. Friend: he has been misled by Opposition Members. In my statement, I referred to the maintenance of the national bargaining framework, not to its abolition, but I said that, within the national bargaining framework, we now have to recognise, for example, conditions in London and the south-east, where, because of high inflation or high house prices, the cost of living for workers must be recognised in the wage bargaining formulae that are agreed. That has happened in many cases for professional workers, but not for low-paid workers, and it is very difficult for low-paid workers in some parts of London and the south-east to afford the housing that they need. I believe that recognising such problems is a progressive cause that he and other hon. Friends should support.
It is true to say that the minimum wage itself is not the only component of the national framework for fairness that I am talking about. The people who benefit most from our national framework for fairness are, for example, single parents who are on relatively low hourly rates, but whose incomes are boosted very considerably by the operation of the tax credit system. The working families tax credit, which went to 1.3 million people, was a framework for fairness that allowed single parents and others returning to work, part-time or full-time, virtually to double the amount of earnings that they would have had under the national minimum wage.
In April, thanks to the decisions of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, single people and couples are now also able to benefit from tax credits. So people who move between jobs or between regions can rely on there being in Britain—one of the few countries where this happens—a national framework for fairness, where the tax credits system ensures that the tax system will pay them money, rather than take money from them, if their wages are below a certain level.
430
I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that the national framework for pay bargaining is in place, that there is a need to accept that local and regional differences have to be recognised and that the national framework for fairness guarantees that, wherever people are—in the north-east, Yorkshire, Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland—they are treated equally in the provision of tax credits, which is a fair way to tackle poverty in our country and to remunerate properly people who otherwise, under previous Governments, would have been pushed into poverty.
Mr. David Trimble: I welcome the Chancellor's reference to seeking reform of the European Central Bank. I would appreciate it if he could give us a little more detail about what reforms he is seeking and what are the prospects for success. I welcome that because it points to where the attention should have been: not so much on the UK economy, which is performing well, but on the euroland economy, which is not. Many of the problems in euroland stern from the ECB and the stability and growth pact, and from the way in which the European Union operates. Is not that where change is needed? Until that change occurs, it does not matter so much what is done in terms of the adjustments that the Chancellor has mentioned today.
I also welcome the reference to globalisation and promoting or removing barriers to EU and US trade. Does not that point to the future? The institutions that we have at the moment in Europe were designed in the 1950s, and may have been appropriate for the Rhineland economies then, but are not appropriate for the 21st century. The future lies in economic globalisation, which is what we should pursue vigorously.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. First, he raised the issue of Europe's future. The European Union was the first trading block and is now one of many trading blocks. It is recognising, however, that the only way to succeed in the global economy is to have far more outward-looking trading relationships, particularly with America. Whereas American investment in Europe has been very high since 1945, a feature of many of the last 10 years was that European investment in American companies was higher than American investment in Europe. An interrelationship therefore exists between the two economies on which we should build, and the proposals we have made today would add to the strong relationships that should exist between the two continents.
On the right hon. Gentleman's point about the European Central Bank, I believe that there is a possibility of reform. In the last few weeks, he may have seen proposals that, while not removing the old two-pillars approach to monetary policy, would lead to a greater emphasis on the inflation target, and suggesting that the inflation target should be 2 per cent. on the harmonised index of consumer prices target, or less. That is a change from the position of the European Central Bank at the beginning, and we look forward to further progress on these issues. That is one of the issues on which I hope to report back next year.
Mr. Patrick Hall: Most people will welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to a

431
balanced and fair public debate, which is long overdue on these matters. Does he therefore share my concern at the increasingly hysterical and scaremongering tone of many of those in the anti-euro camp? Does he accept that the longer that we delay the referendum, the more that hysteria will seek to fill the void, which makes it all the more important that the Government should promote that public debate, treating the British people with respect as adults who are capable of making clear and rational decisions in the interests of Britain?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments, as I am for his work in promoting the car industry and manufacturing in his constituency and right across his region. He is absolutely right that the public debate is necessary and should be informed by the documentation that is being published today, which is most comprehensive on British economic policy and covers a range of issues from exchange rates to fiscal policy and monetary policy. Therefore, a degree of information is now available to the public that has not been available in the past. Equally, he would agree about the importance of convincing the British people that the five tests that we have set must be met. I was looking earlier at a speech that he made in the House saying that we must be clear that the five tests are met, which the measures that I have proposed today would help us achieve.
Mr. Ian Taylor: The Chancellor's enthusiasm for the euro today was positively infectious, and I congratulate him on the change: no longer are the five tests mere obstacles but benchmarks against which he can make a judgment that we should join as soon as possible. Therefore, would he accept that to those Conservative Members who believe that it is in the national interest to join the euro his reforms are welcome and positive? What evaluation has he made of the costs of our not yet having made the decision? He may be delaying it for only a year, but those costs are tangible in terms of investment, uncertainty and often on the effect of influencing changes in the European Central Bank and the stability and growth pact, which will not await our joining.
Mr. Brown: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have always been positive about the principle of the single currency, and I have said that the five tests that we set down are an important guarantee of stability. We have looked at what might have happened if we had joined in 1999. I repeat what I said to the Liberal Democrats a few minutes ago: we looked at both the costs of not joining and the benefits of joining, and we found that to have joined in 1999 at the interest and exchange rates that existed would not have been in the national economic interest and would have led to a recurrence of the stop-go problems that we had in the past.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that, although it is right and necessary for this debate to take place in the country and we can join together in supporting the principle of the single currency, it is also important that we are absolutely sure that convergence and flexibility are at the right levels so that the five tests can be met.
Mr. Martin O'Neill: While I welcome my right hon. Friend's commitment to the achievement of the
432
convergence and flexibility objectives, will he share with us how he proposes to secure changes in the growth and stability pact and the European Central Bank? The example that he gave about the change in the ECB is both fairly modest and one in which we cannot participate because we are not part of the eurozone. Is that not a major obstacle to our securing the changes in the ECB that he achieved with such style and élan in the Bank of England?
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. His work as Chairman of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry has led him to look at the issues in some detail, and I appreciate what he is saying. As for the European Central Bank, I would not underestimate the importance of what is being considered. From a monetary policy that has essentially been about the examination of monetary aggregates, we now have a far greater interest than ever before in inflation targeting, and it is a debate that will continue.
As for the stability and growth pact, just as on the issue of tax harmonisation where we are now winning the intellectual argument that tax competition and not tax harmonisation is the way forward, I believe that we are winning the argument about debt, investment, the economic cycle and the stability and growth pact. People now see that some of the elements that we have been putting forward should be built into the pact. The lessons from British monetary and fiscal policy are lessons that we will continue to put forward, and I believe that there is a great deal of interest in Europe in the British experience.
Sir Peter Tapsell: As the Chancellor is so fond of raising the bogey of the exchange rate mechanism, may I remind him that, in total contrast to him and to the Labour Front-Bench spokesmen of the day, I argued strongly against joining the exchange rate mechanism? After we had joined it, on the Floor of the House I urged the then Chancellor to leave the exchange rate mechanism well before Black Wednesday. In that context, may I ask the Chancellor whether he has seen the famously macabre French play, set in a lunatic asylum, in which some of the cast try to slash their throats in the first act and then spend the rest of the play discussing whether to mount a further suicide bid before the final curtain? Is it really necessary for him to ask the British people, even in principle, to slash their throats a second time?
Mr. Brown: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was describing events at a Conservative party conference.
As far as the exchange rate mechanism is concerned, this has all become a bit much: a Conservative Government took Britain into the exchange rate mechanism. They took the country in at the wrong—[Interruption.] One or two Conservative Members want to disown the process. They took us in at the wrong rate and the wrong time, and their only defence is now to try to blame the Labour party for decisions of a Conservative Government. We will make the right decisions for Britain in the national economic interest, and I believe that our record over the past six years in

433
achieving stability contrasts entirely with the record of a Conservative Government who gave us two recessions and boom and bust.
Mr. George Howarth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that although manufacturing businesses in my constituency and elsewhere, especially those that are heavily dependent on trade in Europe, will be disappointed by today's announcement at first glance, when they think about it, they will realise that he has taken a balanced approach? As he considers these matters further in the coming months, will he ponder on whether it might be sensible for future assessments to include the Bank of England Monetary Policy Committee fairly prominently?
Mr. Brown: My hon. Friend has been active in pursuing the case for manufacturing industry in the north-west for many years since coming to the House. I believe that industry will welcome the way in which we are going about this. Industry wants stability most of all. We have provided stability over six years and we are saying today that we will do nothing that would put stability at risk.
Bob Spink: Uncertainty.
Mr. Brown: If the hon. Gentleman wishes to compare the record of the Conservative Government with that of the Labour Government on stability or certainty, he will find that he has very little to say to the House.
My hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) asked about the Monetary Policy Committee. Of course we are in regular consultation with the Bank of England on various matters and several people from the Bank worked on the studies that we produced today.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory: Stripped of its rather desperate camouflage, the Chancellor's statement boiled down to saying that if Britain joined a low-growth and high-unemployment rigid monetary system, it would not be a very good idea. Will the Chancellor be a little clearer about the referendum on which all this will eventually depend? He re-announced that there will eventually be a referendum on the issue, so why is it the Government's simultaneous policy to rule out in advance a referendum on the constitution of Europe, whatever the constitutional implications might be? What is the logic or sense behind those two positions?
Mr. Brown: The first is that the euro is a specific proposal that would change fundamentally the operation of monetary policy in this country. All parties in the House agree that it is a matter for a referendum. Secondly, the Government are not convinced that the proposals that will arise from the European Convention will be as bad as the right hon. Gentleman thinks but believe that they will be in line with the British Government's policies and will not raise fundamental issues of sovereignty, as he suggests.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: When the euro was launched in our partners, all those countries,
434
especially Germany and France, and more so Ireland, experienced a steep rise of prices on their high streets. Why should the British people vote for something that will cost them more money?
Mr. Brown: The issues of transition that occur when a currency is replaced with another currency, which caused problems in some European Union countries, are something on which we would keep a very close eye, if we reached that point. We would continue to report to the House on such matters. My hon. Friend rightly raises that subject but it is not an issue for the moment but at the point of transition to a single currency.
Mr. David Curry: I sometimes wonder whether the Chancellor draws a distinction between the national economic interest and the national interest. As far as the national interest is concerned, there is a great deal of talk about the new Europe that enlargement will bring into existence and the United Kingdom's opportunity to play a leadership role in that wider Europe. Given that there will be a natural gravitational pull toward countries that have espoused the policies that are considered to be central to the European Union, is it not important that the Chancellor bears those facts in mind and gets on with his further assessment at the earliest sensible opportunity?
Mr. Brown: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on one point: the changes to the European Union, especially the addition of 10 countries, mean that we will have a European Union that will look outwards rather than inwards. The idea of fortress Europe will become a thing of the past and the concept of a trade bloc that exists on its own and is obsessed by its internal rule will change partly because of enlargement and partly because we must meet the needs of competition in the global economy. However, I would not jump from that to saying that irrespective of achieving convergence and flexibility, we should jump into membership of the European single currency. It is necessary to ensure that we have convergence and flexibility that will enable us to live with euro interest rates permanently while advancing our goals of high and stable levels of employment and the proper funding of public services.
When considering those matters, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with his colleague the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), the former Chancellor, that the five tests have a great deal to say for them and that it is necessary to meet them to ensure that potential benefits for trade, investment and co-operation with other EU countries are fully realised.
Mr. Ian Davidson: May I congratulate the Chancellor on ensuring that the decision, which as I understand it is clear and unambiguous, that it is not in Britain's interests to join at the moment is based on economic grounds, not on dogma? Can he assure us that any future review will be taken on similar grounds? Can he tell me how I can expect to inform people in my constituency that in order to get ready to join the euro we need to see an increase in postcode pay—in differentials—according to where people live? Does he not believe that if we want to

435
become truly European on labour matters, we need to accept the information and consultation directive as soon as possible?
Mr. Brown: I think that the rest of Europe is warming to the tax and benefit integration that we propose. It recognises that social cohesion depends on a proper system of remuneration for people who might otherwise be the lowest paid workers in a community. That is why the tax credit system is important. I disagree with the conclusions that my hon. Friend draws about flexibility in the labour market. If we are to achieve full employment in every region of the country, we have to determine what other barriers to employment opportunity exist in those regions. The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions is examining how the Employment Service can do far more. Many people are unemployed in my hon. Friend's city who could be brought back to work quickly.
However, we have to get the right balance between the fairness on which we insist—and on which the Conservatives would not insist—and the flexibility that is necessary in a modern economy to get the benefit of all the opportunities available. I hope that on reflection my hon. Friend will agree that the best strategy to get full employment in his city and his country is to combine the tax credit system with the reform of the Employment Service, to ensure that the new deal works effectively for the long-term unemployed or youth unemployed, and to get the flexibility needed to ensure that we have policies that adjust to the circumstances faced in different regions.
Mr. Andrew Tyrie: This statement was drafted somewhere in a corridor between No. 10 and No. 11 and, frankly, it sounded like it. For the past six years, the Chancellor has told us that he is firmly in control of the decision. Indeed, he made that absolutely clear when he recently came before the Treasury Committee on which I serve. After the extraordinary events of the past few weeks, with the titanic struggle over the drafting of the statement between No. 10 and No. 11, can he assure the House that he is still in control of the decision?
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman heard me speak at the Treasury Committee and he has heard me speak today. The policy that we are pursuing is the policy of
436
the Government. It is the right policy. It would be better from his point of view, as someone who has supported many of the changes that I am bringing about, if he directed his attention to the policy rather than the personality issues.
Mr. Geoffrey Robinson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there will continue to be widespread support on the Labour Benches for his continued adherence to the five tests and, indeed, for the economic reform agenda that he announced today? I am sure he can reaffirm that the adoption of the consumer price index in no way implies the shadowing of any decision that might be taken by the Central Bank and that he would not, as he made clear in his statement, allow decisions in Europe to affect the sustained public investment programme, which is so necessary not just for the reconstruction of our public services, but for avoiding deflation that might otherwise occur.
Mr. Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that and for his work on promoting our country's industries, especially in the west midlands.
On the inflation target, we are moving to the internationally accepted definition of consumer prices. It is a far better definition with a greater quality of information provided to influence the announcements of price indices. I believe that if the rest of the G7, excluding Japan, operate to that system, it is better to have an internationally valid system of comparison if at all possible. That is why it is right in itself as well as something that brings about greater convergence with the European Union.
On the ERM, let me repeat what I said about monetary policy: we do not propose to rejoin the exchange rate mechanism. As for public investment, my definition of sustainable convergence is that we can live permanently with the euro interest rate while maintaining our programmes for the funding of public services and for high and stable levels of growth and employment. I believe that that is the best way forward for our country.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The Clerk will now proceed to read the Orders of the Day.

Points of Order
5.14 pm
Mr. George Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would appreciate your help with a situation that I believe is unprecedented since you and I entered the House 24 years ago. As you know, we have an Opposition day on Wednesday, two days from now, but the House has still not been informed of the subject for debate on that day. That means that it is entirely impossible for Back Benchers to seek your permission to speak in that debate or to prepare for it, and Ministers, and indeed shadow Ministers, do not know whether to be present on that day. That is outrageous. Just because the Opposition cannot get their act together, cannot decide on the subject, and appear to be in total disarray is no reason why the House should be disadvantaged. Would you, Mr. Speaker, as the protector of the interests of the House, particularly those of Back Benchers, take action to remedy this situation immediately?
Mr. Speaker: I think that this is something that I should keep well out of. It is nothing to do with the Chair.
Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On the last few Opposition day debates the Opposition have received well and truly bloodied noses. Can you assure me that this is not an attempt on their part to ensure that Government Members cannot prepare for Opposition day debates in the future?
Mr. Speaker: I have already ruled on that.
Mr. Barry Gardinerrose—
Mr. Speaker: Is it different point of order?
Mr. Gardiner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have made it clear that that is not a point of order.

Orders of the Day

  Courts Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.16 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Yvette Cooper): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  This is the Second Reading of the Courts Bill, which has already been well debated and discussed in another place. It forms an important part of a much wider, long-term programme to improve and modernise the criminal justice system, as set out in the White Paper "Justice for All". But more than that, the Bill aims to improve the entire justice system. It supports improvements in the civil and family courts as well as having particular measures to improve areas of the criminal courts where specific issues need to be addressed.
  Given the other business of the day, it is perhaps unsurprising that attendance in the Chamber is thinning out. I applaud the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) for his restraint in awaiting the debate. I recognise that it will have been difficult for him to resist the temptation to join in the debate on Europe and matters euro, but I welcome his presence for discussions on the Courts Bill.
  Mr. William Cash: I cannot resist the temptation to reply to that. I simply say that I think that I have said a lot of it before.
  Yvette Cooper: That is almost certainly true. I do not think that any of us will be in any doubt about his views on that issue.
  Nevertheless, the House overlooks the smooth running of the courts at its peril. Ultimately, the courts are a fundamental pillar of our democracy. They enable the delivery of justice and they underpin the rule of law. The running of the courts matters too because, ultimately, those members of the public who pass through the courts are those whose lives are troubled in some way or other. Be they distressed victims of crime, witnesses doing their civic duty, defendants at risk of losing their liberty, families battling over the custody of their children, claimants unable to resolve their dispute in any other way, those who end up in court need to be sure that justice will be done.
  Such people depend on courts to deliver fair and effective justice, and they depend on courts that are free from unnecessary and avoidable delay, that are in touch with the communities that they serve and more responsive to the needs of their users. The Bill's purpose is to establish a modern, efficient court system, one fit for the 21st century.
  Mr. David Heath: The Bill sets out a key purpose of effectiveness and efficiency. It does not talk about accessibility. Is there a core necessity for courts to be accessible to the people who use them,

  439
  without financial or geographical barriers? That is a question that many of us need to have answered during today's debate.
  Yvette Cooper: In fact, an amendment to clause 30 concerning accessibility was tabled in the House of Lords. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, I shall come to that later.
  Andrew Mackinlay: I am not rushing to my hon. Friend's rescue, because she is well able to defend the measure herself, and will do so with great enthusiasm. On accessibility, however, I was convinced of the correctness of doing away with the magistrates courts committees—which is in clause 6—partly by my painful experience in Thurrock, where people who were accountable to no one in my community decided to remove the local court to Basildon. I want to place on record my people's gratitude to the Minister, who intervened on our behalf and today confirmed that Thurrock's magistrates courts will endure. We appreciate that very much. It is a question of accessibility. The guys and women who run the magistrates courts committee—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): Order. The hon. Gentleman has made his point.
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. As a result of the appeal to Ministers, we overturned the decision of the Essex magistrates courts committee to close Grays magistrates court. It is important for hon. Members to recognise that although decisions always need to be taken about the court estate, including its modernisation—as was the case under previous Administrations—it is important that there should be a local voice in those decisions. My hon. Friend is not the only Member to have raised concerns with me about the system of magistrates courts committees, where decisions are taken entirely by magistrates, not by those who speak for the local community involved. That is one of the issues that we address in the Bill.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful to the Minister for giving way again so early on. On that point, surely the existing system ensures that the administration of justice remains local, whereas the new proposals in the Bill, which effectively bring magistrates into the same structure as the Crown and civil courts, remove the locality of justice, to all intents and purposes greatly increasing the centralised power over that justice from the centre.
  Yvette Cooper: That is simply not true. I shall cover the matter in a bit more detail later, but, to give an example, a statement issued by the Magistrates Association's criminal justice system committee on 6 May says:
  "The proposed Unified Administration is not a threat to local justice".
  We had a series of discussions with stakeholders as the Bill passed through the Lords to ensure that we set out a new organisation with a very decentralised structure. That is precisely the reason for setting up courts boards. Hon. Members should bear in mind that the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) and many of his
  440
  hon. Friends have complained that some of the decisions that are taken under the current system do not reflect the wishes of the local community. They cannot have it both ways.
  I want to put on record my thanks to the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department for its report on the Bill, which is published today. This is the first time that the Department has had a Select Committee to scrutinise our legislation, and it is an extremely helpful and welcome development. I shall try to address some of the points that it raised today, although we will obviously need to consider them. I am sure that we will have further discussions in Committee.
  Let me begin with the measures to introduce a unified administration for the courts, which I believe to be the most important and significant in the Bill. Sir Robin Auld recommended in his independent "Review of the Criminal Courts of England and Wales" that the administration of all courts below the House of Lords—the civil, family and criminal courts—should be integrated into a new single organisation. The unification of the management of the courts has widespread support from the judiciary, the Bar, the Law Society, the Justices' Clerks Society and the Magistrates Association, among others. It will end the division between the 42 magistrates courts committees and the Court Service and address the duplication and inefficiency involved in having 43 separate organisations running the courts. Sir Robin described the current position as "unnecessary, inefficient and wasteful".
  Mr. A. J. Beith: The Parliamentary Secretary kindly referred to the Select Committee. She described the Auld process, which involved widespread consultation during the inquiry and subsequently. However, when the Select Committee discussed the way in which the Lord Chancellor might exercise his powers under the Bill, we did not know that his replacement with a justice Minister in the Commons was under consideration. That has not been subject to the same consultation. Apart from all the other issues and the merits of such an action, the sort of consultation with the judiciary that the Parliamentary Secretary described appears not to have been undertaken.
  Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is interested in reading the papers and in the gossip and rumours that circulate. Clearly, such matters are for the Prime Minister, not me.
  The proposals will allow a more flexible use of resources and accommodation, thus encouraging parts of the system to work together more effectively to respond to local needs. A unified court estate would, for example, allow the heavy work load of one courthouse to be shared with another, underused courthouse, thereby perhaps saving one from closure while reducing delays at the other. It would also ensure that decisions about the location of magistrates courts were taken with the location of Crown courts, the Crown Prosecution Service and the police in mind. It would allow more flexible operation, especially in areas on the boundaries between existing magistrates courts committees.
  Unification in a single organisation will allow us to set a proper framework of national standards and to tackle poor performance in the courts. The latter is currently

  441
  difficult in magistrates courts. For example, there are wide and unacceptable variations in fine enforcement between the independent magistrates courts committees, ranging from more than 80 per cent. in some areas to less than 40 per cent. in others. Government, Parliament or the local community can do little about poor performance in some areas under the current system.
  Vera Baird: Is not the problem exacerbated by the fact that compensation to victims of crime is levied under the same system as fines, but paid first? That means that, if instalments are not paid, many people bear the cost of the crimes of which they have been victims.
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. and learned Friend is right that failure to enforce fines and compensation orders can have a significant impact on the victims of crime and on wider society because the credibility of the courts depends on enforcing decisions. We are considering methods of separating the ways in which the data are gathered. I shall happily discuss those issues further with my hon. and learned Friend, if she is interested.
  The Bill also allows us to improve performance in the courts that the Court Service currently runs. The introduction of the courts boards will support more substantial decentralisation than exists in the Court Service. That will encourage local innovation and flexibility. It will also extend independent inspection, which currently applies only to magistrates courts, to other courts for the first time.
  The Bill will give local communities a much greater voice in running their courts and should improve the focus of the courts' management on fulfilling court users' needs. There is currently no role for local people in decisions about their county court or their Crown court, and there is little role for them in magistrates courts. Magistrates courts committees consist predominantly of magistrates, and their make-up does not even reflect local magistrates, let alone the community as a whole. For example, half the population and 49 per cent. of magistrates are women, yet they comprise only 25 per cent. of magistrates courts committee members. It is right for the new courts boards to reflect the community more broadly.
  Mr. Graham Allen: Does the Bill make any effort to explain the work of magistrates courts to the ordinary, law-abiding person, perhaps through an annual report to every elector? If so, could we also consider giving courts names that reflect their functions? "County court" and "Crown court" do not mean anything to most ordinary people. Could not we use names such as "regional court" and "local court" and thus let the public into the secret instead of confining the information to lawyers?
  Yvette Cooper: The Bill includes some changes of name to make certain things more comprehensible. For example, instead of petty sessions areas, we shall have local justice areas, which is far more transparent to those of us who might have been slightly baffled the first time we heard of a petty sessions area. The Bill also
  442
  modernises certain titles in the judiciary. It does not set out some of the proposals that my hon. Friend has made. I know that he has raised these issues before, and I shall be happy to consider them further, although I think it unlikely that such measures would be included in the legislation. However, we certainly need to look further at the way in which each of the courts boards relates to the local community that it needs to reflect, and to ensure that the courts as a whole respond to the needs of the community and communicate with it. Some of the measures relating to magistrates' recruitment that are being considered might be an area in which some of the issues raised by my hon. Friend could be picked up.
  Mr. Allen: I thank my h on. Friend for her generosity in giving way a second time. Individual taxpayers probably pay several thousand pounds each to maintain the criminal justice system. Would my hon. Friend be open to either letters or amendments that would make it clear that those people were entitled to receive a report on something that they were paying for and that was being done in their name?
  Yvette Cooper: I would certainly consider any letter that my hon. Friend chooses to send, or any further discussions on this issue that he wants to have.
  The Bill establishes a new Executive agency, different from both the Court Service and the magistrates courts committees, to be headed by a chief executive; local areas will be managed by chief officers. The chief officers will work in co-operation and partnership with the local courts boards established by clause 4. The establishment of the local courts boards within an Executive agency is an unusual approach. It will provide an important way of balancing the need for a national framework and standards and the need to prevent duplication with the need for local, decentralised decision making and accountability. The Select Committee's report asked for clarification of the role of the boards, and we have already placed a statement of the principles that will form the basis of the agency's framework document in the Libraries of both Houses. That sets out some of the details of the partnership between the agency and the courts boards and how we expect that partnership to work.
  Schedule 1 provides further details of the constitution and procedure of the courts boards. We are also still engaged in detailed discussions with many of those working in the magistrates courts service and the Court Service, as well as court users, to try to get right the exact nature of the work that the courts boards will do. I can tell my hon. Friend that I will set out an outline of some of the measures involved.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoodyrose—
  Mr. John Horam rose—
  Yvette Cooper: I will give way to my hon. Friend first.
  Mrs. Dunwoody: May I ask my hon. Friend why it is necessary to set up an entire stand-alone agency? The history of agencies in this country is that not only are

  443
  they very large but they grow consistently and are rarely tremendously responsible. Indeed, their whole structure is not usually responsible to the House of Commons.
  Yvette Cooper: We already have an agency that runs the Crown courts, the county courts and the higher courts. In addition, we have 42 separate organisations that run the magistrates courts across the country. The Auld review concluded that that fragmentation into so many different organisations created all kinds of duplication and difficulty. Clearly, the new agency will be accountable to the House, via Ministers. Indeed, I think that there will be greater accountability to the House than under the current arrangements, under which, as hon. Members have said, when magistrates courts committees take decisions that the local community does not like or when they perform unacceptably, there is very little that the House can do to hold them to account. That is why it is right to bring the magistrates courts committees into a new agency that will incorporate both the Court Service and the separate magistrates courts committees. Equally, we need the local courts boards to have a voice in the local community and to allow the community to hold them to account for the local decisions that they make.
  Mr. Horam: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as I could not be present for the beginning of her speech.
  Perhaps the Minister's new arrangements would help us in Bromley. We have a brand new magistrates court which is half empty most of the time, while across the road the Crown court is packed out. Ours is a practical problem. Would the Minister's proposals solve it?
  Yvette Cooper: I do not know the details, but that sounds like exactly the sort of problem that a new single agency ought to be able to solve. It is crazy that one court can be bursting at the seams while another nearby is half empty. In other circumstances there might be two underused courthouses. Neither the county court nor the magistrates court might be viable on its own, but the sharing of accommodation might allow both courts to be retained in the community. Such arrangements have already been made informally, for instance in Bolton and Salford. We have recently upheld several appeals against the closure of magistrates courts, one of the grounds being that the MCCs had not fully explored other possible options with the Court Service, and had not thought enough about the implications for the various courts. What the hon. Gentleman suggests would allow better use of resources.
  Stephen Hesford: My hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody) mentioned answerability to the House. Under clause 1(4), the Lord Chancellor will have to lay before the House an annual report about the work of the new agency.
  Yvette Cooper: That is true, and I think it will make the work of the courts and the new agency more transparent than it would otherwise be.
  The courts boards will consist of magistrates, judges, court users and representatives of the local community. We intend them to have a vital and continuing role in the
  444
  strategic management of courts in their areas. They will be involved in the development of business plans at the start of the year, and will receive regular performance reports so that they can propose remedial action where necessary. The plans will set out how resources will be used to deliver services locally, and will include any proposals to open or close courthouses. We expect the boards to have a say in decisions about the court estate, including decisions about closures. That is, I think, a more involved role than the role envisaged by the Select Committee.
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: Can the Minister confirm that it is not an executive role, and that the most that a board can do is express its views?
  Yvette Cooper: The boards will not have executive powers. Some have argued that they should have such powers in their own right, but that would mean establishing separate statutory bodies to run the courts. We would have a version of the current framework for the MCCs, covering all the courts rather than just the magistrates courts. That would not allow us to address the problems identified by Sir Robin Auld, or the unacceptable variations in performance, without complex legislation that would probably cause further problems in terms of inflexibility. I think it would also be strongly opposed by those currently involved in work on the civil and family side and in the Crown courts.
  The courts boards will provide statutory backing for the non-executive role that will be played by their members, in partnership with the executives. We expect them to work very closely on proposals with local managers. The Bill specifically requires them to look at such matters as the business plan.
  Mr. Allen: I thank the Minister for her generosity in giving way again. She will have heard the remarks of our noble Friend Lord Falconer, the Minister of State, Home Office, in the other place, who said that we must place victims at the centre of the criminal justice system. Will victims' organisations have a place on the board, or will that be left open? I am thinking particularly of an example in my own area, where the youth court has converted a créche into a waiting room. The alleged offenders and the victims sit in more intimate proximity than I am to the Front Bench, which obviously leads to intimidation of many witnesses. A victims' organisation would be the first to pick up on such problems.
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend makes an important point. We have discussed that problem in detail during regional consultations across the country, including with court users. We have not specified at this stage exactly who the members of the courts boards will be, but the Bill allows for at least two representatives of the wider community and two people who have knowledge of the courts. We put that wording in so as to include representatives of victims' groups or those who work with witnesses. That representation is possible under the current framework, and it is one of the issues that we thought through in drafting the legislation, but it is not one on which we have taken a final decision.
  Mr. Beith: I want the Minister to consider what the magistrates said to us in the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department. The Magistrates Association said of the boards that
  "they are neither one thing nor the other; they are trying to be both consultative, representative and, partly, management. What we are seeking are proper management boards".
  However, other witnesses came to us horrified at the possibility that these boards would have anything other than an advisory role, because they involve members of the judiciary. It seems impossible to reconcile those positions, so the Government will have to come down one way or the other: either the boards can make executive decisions or they cannot.
  Yvette Cooper: The right hon. Gentleman is right that there are disagreements about that. Different stakeholders take different views. Although there is broad support for the overall process of unification, as a result of the debates that took place in the House of Lords, there is growing consensus behind the arrangements that the Government have set out. The alternatives to that were either to establish a single Executive agency or to set up separate bodies that would each have boards that have executive powers. If the boards had executive powers, that would result in the creation of separate organisations and would replicate many of the problems with the existing magistrates courts committees. We were keen not to have a traditional Executive agency.
  I concede that we are doing something new: this is not the model of the traditional Executive agency on which many public services are run. We thought it important to have a voice for the local community, but not one that was set apart and detached from the courts—not a separate committee that had no direct close links with the management of the courts—rather one that would involve non-executive members working in close partnership with the local managers of the courts.
  There was some discussion about whether we could do that without putting such a provision in the Bill, instead including in the framework document the requirement that every local manager would need to work in partnership with a local committee or a local board. We thought it was important to give them statutory backing, permanence and a stronger voice. That is why the courts boards are being established.
  We will establish an Executive agency, and it will ultimately be accountable to Parliament, and the buck will stop with Ministers and with the Lord Chancellor. We need to ensure that the views of local courts boards are taken seriously throughout the organisation to ensure that there is local decentralised decision making and that the local community is properly involved in those decisions.
  Much of the work involving different stakeholders is about how to make the system work in practice. It already has growing support as people have become more involved in the nature of the arrangements that are being put together. For example, the Magistrates Association said in May that
  "the new courts boards, despite their non-executive status, do appear to have an effective role and the ability to make genuine decisions".
  Some argued that we should not have the courts boards or anything like that, and that we should just have a traditional centralised executive agency. Others argued
  446
  that we should have local boards with executive powers on the model of magistrates courts committees. We rejected both those views, and are building a different organisation. It will take some work and considerable further development, but it is the right thing to do and the right balance to strike.
  Hon. Members have raised many issues about the structure. That was discussed in detail in the House of Lords. Interestingly, one of the other things that was raised in the debates in the other place was the concern of the Magistrates Association that even under the current system of magistrates courts committees, magistrates do not feel sufficiently consulted and involved in decisions. That is why, after representations from the Magistrates Association, we agreed in the other place to an amendment that provides statutory hacking to consultation directly with the magistracy, not simply via courts boards and via the management structure of the organisation.
  The Government strongly support the lay magistracy. They are extremely grateful for the tireless contribution that magistrates make to the unique system of lay justice. Our 28,000 lay magistrates represent one of the greatest commitments to volunteering in Britain. Although the Court Service has what I think is regarded as a very good relationship with the judiciary, we felt it important to recognise that the magistracy, not being professionals and not being in the courts at the same time, needed further statutory reassurance that their views would be properly taken on board in the new organisation.
  Mr. Allen: On that point, as the numbers of the magistracy decline, the House loads more and more new legislation on to magistrates to judge upon. Does the Bill in any sense address the shortfall in magistrates and the Composition of the magistracy in terms of age and gender?
  Yvette Cooper: The gender profile of the magistracy reflects relatively closely the gender profile of the population: 49 per cent. of magistrates are women. A lot of work has been under way for some time to increase the number of people from different minority ethnic communities in the magistracy. We are looking at possible recruitment expansion for the magistracy. Interestingly, the measures in the Criminal Justice Bill to extend magistrates' sentencing powers are a huge vote of confidence in the magistracy.
  Most of the detail about how the new organisation will work is not in the Bill, nor should it be. It is not our function as legislators to design the detail of a new organisation. We have said from the start that the new organisation needs to be built by those who are most closely involved in all the different courts at the moment. That is why an immense number of consultations have taken place. A report on the discussion groups that have taken place throughout the country is available in the Libraries of both Houses for hon. Members who wish to look further into that.
  As I have said, different stakeholders have different views on some of the detail. We will not satisfy everyone but I think that we have made important progress and are building a new organisation that has the confidence of the judiciary, the Magistrates Association, the

  447
  Justices' Clerks Society and other organisations, stakeholders and trade unions that are closely involved in the running of the courts.
  Rob Marris: Schedule 2, which is about the abolition of magistrates courts committees, sets out that the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981 I will apply. Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure the House, and people who work in the Court Service, that although TUPE does not cover pensions—because the acquired rights directive does not—the pension rights of those staff will be preserved upon transfer?
  Yvette Cooper: I certainly can assure my hon. Friend that we have had considerable discussions with the unions about the pension arrangements. I understand that the unions are currently happy with the arrangements and I am happy to have further discussions with them if further concerns are raised. Those discussions have covered the details of pensions arrangements, as well as the rest of the TUPE measures.
  The Bill contains other measures to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of the courts, particularly the criminal courts. Part 2 supports the closer integration of the jurisdiction of the magistrates courts and the Crown courts. It will remove unnecessary restrictions and geographical boundaries, allowing cases to be heard at the most convenient location and helping to speed up the delivery of justice. Magistrates will have national jurisdiction, allowing them to be reassigned quickly if they change address, to sit at a court near their place of work, or to provide for circumstances in which it is inappropriate for a local bench to hear a case.
  Clause 19 underpins a much greater role for the Judicial Studies Board in the training, appraisal and development of magistrates. Part 7 of the Bill introduces a new statutory criminal procedure rule committee, following the recommendation of Sir Robin Auld that a single authoritative body to make rules for the Court of Appeal, the Crown court and the magistrates courts should be created.
  At present, there is no single forum for discussing improvements in the criminal trial process, and rules tend to develop in a piecemeal fashion. The new committee will be given a modernising and streamlining agenda to try to achieve greater integration in and consistency across the criminal justice system, and this has been welcomed strongly by the Lord Chief Justice.
  Fine enforcement accounts for a major section of the Bill. Bluntly, fine enforcement by the independent magistrates courts committees is too low, and there are unacceptable variations in the level of enforcement across the country.
  Mr. David Kidney: As a footnote to the issue of the administration of the new service, as two consultations on the reorganisation of magistrates courts are going on in Staffordshire—one about a unified administration and another about reducing six petty sessional divisions to three—may I ask whether there is any point in continuing with such consultations and plans, in the light of the law that is about to be introduced?
  Yvette Cooper: I do not know the details of the consultations to which my hon. Friend refers, but there
  448
  is probably a need to carry on with sensible changes, whether at local or regional level. We cannot freeze the entire work of the courts simply because of the process of unifying the administration. Clearly, where decisions are to be taken on where the unified administration is relevant, or when links with other courts are relevant, those matters need to be taken into account. There will be problems if those facilities operate in a vacuum. However, it would be a mistake for all of those consultations and debates to be held up as a result.
  Effective fine enforcement is essential for upholding the authority of the courts, sustaining confidence in the fine as a sanction and ensuring that victims and prosecutors receive their compensation or costs. Currently, the percentage of fines and other payments collected by the courts stands at below 60 per cent. In some areas the payment rate is over 80 per cent.; in others it is under 40 per cent. That simply does not provide the necessary assurance to sentencers and the public that the fines imposed will be paid in practice. The Bill already sets out a series of measures to improve fine enforcement, and we are considering going further.
  Mr. Humfrey Malins: Could the variation in the recovery of fines be anything to do with the ability and willingness of the persons fined in the areas concerned to pay?
  Yvette Cooper: A series of factors may affect the level of enforcement in particular areas. Some research suggests that income levels in particular areas have an impact on payment rates; in areas with lower incomes, there are also lower payment rates. Some of those concerned genuinely cannot pay the fines that have been imposed; some simply will not pay—but variations in income are not sufficient to explain the variations in the level of enforcement.
  Other factors also affect fine enforcement. In areas where payment points were closed, there was an impact on the level of fines collected—which was hardly surprising, really. In some areas, fine enforcement courts were not held for a period; that too had an impact on enforcement rates. Magistrates courts committees can carry out some administrative functions that have an impact on the level of fine enforcement.
  Mr. Cash: It is understood that the Government propose to table amendments to deal with aspects of fine enforcement. Will the Parliamentary Secretary assure me that those amendments will be ready for the Committee, and not just introduced on Report—and, furthermore, that they will deal with some of the questions raised in the recommendations of the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department?
  Yvette Cooper: It is our intention to table amendments in time for the Committee, and I want to outline some of the areas on which we are considering amendments. Our proposals were widely welcomed as improvements to the fine enforcement system; they were described in the Select Committee report as "manna from heaven," and I hope that they will bring about improvements.
  The approach behind the Bill is as follows: once the court orders have been made, enforcement is primarily an administrative process. There should be every

  449
  opportunity for the offender to co-operate and to pay the fine promptly, but much less opportunity for persistent offenders to play the system. Support must be available for those who need help to organise their payments or who are genuinely struggling to pay. People should not be able to evade the sentences of the courts. That means that we need alternatives and advice for those who genuinely cannot pay, stronger sanctions for those who will not pay, and a better system of administration to make that happen in practice.
  The unified administration will allow poor performance in some areas to be addressed in a way that it cannot be at present. The Bill also provides for the courts to get better information on defendants' means, so they can sentence more appropriately in the first place. Clause 36 allows us to appoint fines officers, who will have discretion to vary payment terms and will be able to impose sanctions on defaulters who refuse to co-operate, without the need for further court hearings.
  Mr. Hogg: The Parliamentary Secretary may be coming to this, but the Bill provides for discounts of up to 50 per cent. Has any study been made of whether the discounts are likely to reduce substantially the flow of revenue from fines or, alternatively, to drive fine levels up?
  Yvette Cooper: We do not know the answer to that yet, which is exactly why we have to pilot the measures. Some have argued that the discounts will provide an incentive and will increase the level of revenue; others have argued that they will reduce the income, as the only people who will receive a discount will be those who would have paid anyway. We need to measure this in practice, which is why we have said that the discounts, the increases and the sanctions will be piloted first. We plan to begin the pilots rapidly, to assess the impact of the measures on fine enforcement and on the level of income flowing in to the courts.
  Mr. Matins: The Parliamentary Secretary mentioned new sanctions in the Bill. Apart from the clamping of vehicles, how many new sanctions are there?
  Yvette Cooper: The Bill gives fines officers the ability to take further action without referring the matter back to the courts. The things that court officers will be able to do that currently they cannot do include—as well as allowing the discounts and the increases—registering the fine in the registry of judgments to make it more difficult to get credit, authorising bailiffs to seize defaulters' goods, and clamping cars. Those decisions can be made by fines officers to improve the enforcement system. The schedule includes a right of appeal against decisions made by fines officers. As I said, those arrangements, too, will be piloted.
  In parallel with the legislative programme, we are developing a network of support and advice, to be piloted alongside the measures in schedule 3, for those who need help in organising their payments, or who are genuinely struggling with multiple debts. It is important that we be able to distinguish between those who will not
  450
  pay and those who genuinely cannot pay. This provision addresses a particular concern that was expressed by the Select Committee. For example, we are considering having citizens advice bureaux in courts—a measure that has been tried in some areas—to make sure that those with financial difficulties also get support and advice.
  However, we believe that we need to go further. Since the Bill was drawn up last autumn, we have considered further how to make fine enforcement more effective, and we expect to introduce some amendments in Committee. First, we will consider further amendments in relation to increasing the use of deductions of earnings or benefits. Why should people be able to evade the sentence of courts, when courts could easily deduct payments from benefits or wages, for example? We are looking at ways of making that easier for the courts.
  Secondly, we need to do more to address the problem of those who genuinely cannot pay. Where an offender has very limited means, we propose to give the courts the power to convert a fine into unpaid work. During discussions throughout the country, this power was requested by individual magistrates for cases in which, when sentencing, they know that the person before them is unlikely to be able to pay the fine, but no sentencing alternative is available. The Home Office is already working with the voluntary sector on this power. It will be available for cases in which the fines officer subsequently establishes that the offender does not have the means to pay the fine, or at the point of sentencing if the court believes that that is the most appropriate option. This proposal, too, will be piloted.
  Finally, we are considering introducing amendments to create more flexibility in the administration of the scheme. In March, the Government commissioned an independent review of the enforcement strategies currently being operated in magistrates courts committees. Ministers have not yet received the report's final recommendations and conclusions, but the preliminary recommendations are that the system set out in the Bill is still too inflexible. First, it allows fines officers to renegotiate a repayment schedule with offenders only once, before the matter has to be returned to the courts. Secondly, the review argues that the Bill is too restrictive in insisting that all the fines officers' new functions need to be carried out by employees of the new agency.
  Under current arrangements, some existing fine enforcement functions take place outside the courts. For example, some MCCs contract with private companies, and others with the police. The review also suggests that there is considerable commercial expertise involved in debt collection. Under the Bill's current drafting, there is little flexibility to draw on outside and commercial expertise in the new fines enforcement functions. So after discussions across government, we will consider further amendments to increase flexibility, while still retaining the Bill's safeguards against contracting out judicial functions, and ensuring consultation. We will look at those measures further once we receive the final report, and we also hope to place its conclusions in the Library before the discussions in Committee.
  Mr. Kidney: May I make another suggestion about flexibility, concerning information that is before the court and the fines enforcement officers? My hon.

  451
  Friend began this section of her speech by saying that courts would have more information. A financial statement is required from the person before the court, but what is the position on the exchange of information with others, such as the Department for Work and Pensions and the tax authorities? My understanding is that either there is no law on the exchange of that information, or it is not very well known.
  Yvette Cooper: Changes were introduced relatively recently to allow better sharing of information with the DWP and the Inland Revenue. I am happy to provide my hon. Friend with further details to allay the concern that he raises.
  It is clear that we must ensure that we improve fine enforcement, based on a system that works, and on evidence of what works. That is why we have made it clear that we want to pilot new measures and to consider the practicalities. Either way, it is clear that the current system is not producing the right results, and that reforms in this area are needed.
  Mr. Kidney: Will my hon. Friend give way just one more time?
  Yvette Cooper: I will—once more.
  Mr. Kidney: I am grateful. My hon. Friend said at the beginning of this part of her speech that she was talking not just about fines but about compensation as well. Is it likely that someone's compensation will be reduced because a discount is given to the offender for prompt payment, and will the compensation order be converted into community service, so that the injured party gets no compensation at all?
  Yvette Cooper: No, that is not my understanding, but I will ensure that the correct answer to that question is available in good time.
  Mr. Heath: As the hon. Lady may know, we discussed this matter during consideration of the Criminal Justice Bill. There is an overwhelming case for having some form of compensation fund to ensure prompt payment to the victim of a compensation order, which can then be recouped by the system that she is describing. Is that not the crux of the reform that needs to be made in respect of compensation orders?
  Yvette Cooper: I recognise that those arguments have been made over time. The purpose of compensation orders is to ensure that the perpetrator of the crime provides compensation to the victim. That was the original intention, and I know that the Home Office has been considering this issue further.
  In answer to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), my understanding is that, in terms of discounts and other related issues, this provision does not apply to compensation orders; it applies only to fines.
  On court security, the Bill also includes provisions in part 4 for a more effective security presence in court buildings. Courts should be safe environments for all who use them. In particular, victims and witnesses must be able to come to court confident that they will not face
  452
  harassment or intimidation, and the proposals in clauses 51 to 57 define the role of court security officers. The provisions in clause 93 enable the criminal courts to award costs against those whose serious misconduct causes parties to the proceedings to incur or waste costs. The taxpayer should not have to pay the bill if a case collapses or is delayed because of the serious misconduct of somebody else. Under the Bill, the person or organisation that causes the delay, or even the collapse, of the proceedings should have to pay the wasted costs. This fills a gap in the criminal courts' powers over costs, and should act as a deterrent against action that might delay or prolong criminal proceedings, or cause them to be abandoned.
  Mr. Allen: Does this provision include defence solicitors, many of whom know all the tricks of the trade? As my hon. Friend knows, I raised this issue with her during the Department's two most recent oral question sessions. In order to prolong the intimidation of often elderly and vulnerable witnesses and to get their client off, adjournments are sought for spurious reasons. Will such compensation be levelled against those colleagues in the legal profession?
  Yvette Cooper: As my hon. Friend will recall from some of our discussions of this issue, through separate work under the case preparation project, consideration is being given to the different responsibilities of all the players in the criminal justice system—including defence lawyers—the different existing incentives, and whether further incentives or penalties ought to be introduced to prevent unnecessary delays and adjournments. Of course, wasted costs orders can already be levelled against defence or prosecution solicitors under the current system. The case preparation project will consider how that provision could be taken forward in practice.
  Mr. Beith: Will the Minister confirm that among those who could be affected by that provision are newspapers that cause cases to collapse because they prejudice a fair trial through the material that they produce, or which induce trials that should never have been brought in the first place? However, given the balance of press freedom and the issues under discussion, surely she recognises that it is important that the House be able to see how the provision will work. We therefore need to see the regulations that will determine its scope.
  Yvette Cooper: I think that there may have been some confusion over the matter, which was picked up in the Select Committee's report. It is not our intention to introduce regulations in this respect; it will be for the courts to decide what serious misconduct amounts to, according to the circumstances of individual cases. We will not bring forward guidance or regulations on that matter, but leave it to the courts to decide. The right hon. Gentleman is right in that a wide range of potential third parties are included—the media, as he said, but also jurors, or perhaps people entering the court to sabotage court proceedings. It is appropriate for the courts to decide what counts as serious misconduct in particular cases.
  Mr. Clive Soley rose—
  Yvette Cooper: I will give way to my hon. Friend, who has not intervened before—but I have been speaking for some time, and I know that other hon. Members want to speak.
  Mr. Soley: I am slightly puzzled. I am particularly interested in this part of the Bill and I am strongly in favour of its provisions, particularly those dealing with newspapers and others who are responsible for the collapse of trials, or wrongful convictions. In many respects, I am happy to leave that for judges to decide. However, I am puzzled because clause 93(4) states:
  "Regulations made under this section may, in particular … specify types of misconduct in respect of which a third party costs order may not be made",
  and then provides further examples. It expressly refers to regulations, so I am puzzled about the implications, and I am glad that the Minister is better equipped to understand them than I am.
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right, and my officials have hastily provided me with a detailed note clarifying the position. There will be regulations, but not guidance. The confusion that arose is about the guidance that the Attorney-General said that he would issue about the way in which trials could be prejudiced. Guidance is separate, but my hon. Friend is right to say that regulations will be made in respect of those matters.
  I am aware of the issue of the timing of regulations, which was mentioned by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith). He made a good point about timing, but we have to consider some issues further and will return to the issue as part of our general response to the Select Committee's report.
  The Bill introduces a series of measures on the civil and family courts. For example, clause 77 creates a family procedure rule committee with the power to make rules of procedure for the magistrates courts, the county courts and the High Court when hearing family proceedings. That will help to promote clarity and consistency of approach across the various tiers of courts hearing family disputes.
  The provisions in clauses 98 and 99 will strengthen the civil courts' power in personal injury cases to award damages in the form of periodical payments rather than a lump sum. Regular periodical payments provide a more appropriate way of compensating claimants for future loss and care costs. They will help to ensure that seriously injured people receive the compensation to which they are entitled for as long as it is needed, giving greater security to claimants, who will be able to plan for the future without any anxieties about the award running out.
  Rob Marris: I should declare that my constituency party receives money from Thompson's, a firm of solicitors that does a considerable amount of civil work. Can the Minister say whether the provisions will save or cost the insurance company money—save, because people who die shortly after receiving a huge lump sum
  454
  currently keep it, or cost, when someone who lives for a long time receives many periodic payments? Has any assessment of cost to the industry been made?
  Yvette Cooper: If my hon. Friend will allow me, I shall ask my fellow Parliamentary Secretary to respond to that in her summing-up speech.
  Part 6 contains provisions to improve the public's perception of the courts. For example, it changes the ways of naming people in the judiciary, allowing female judges of the Court of Appeal to be styled "Lady Justice" rather than "Lord Justice", and allowing the Lord Chancellor to modernise other judicial titles further. Coupled with the consultation on court dress currently being run by the Lord Chancellor's Department, those measures are part of improving the public impression of the justice system.
  The Bill will have a powerful effect on the delivery of modern, efficient and flexible courts. It will promote better management and administration, with potentially fewer delays, and a greater focus on the communities that the courts must serve. The Bill improves support for victims and witnesses, and provides a fairer means of compensating those who have suffered personal injury, while removing unnecessary complexity and outmoded traditions. Those measures will make a real and practical difference to the courts, while supporting our overarching aim of "Justice for All". I commend the Bill to the House.
  6.15 pm
  Mr. William Cash: The Bill is important and has been given serious consideration in the other place. On Third Reading, there was a great deal of sensible and, in my view, merited mutual congratulation as between one side and the other. The noble Baroness Scotland of Asthal said:
  "It has been a great pleasure to work with such industry coming from all sides of the House. The Bill goes to another place in a better order. It speaks highly of this House that the work has been done with such good feeling and in comity."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 19 May 2003; Vol. 648, c. 548.]
  From my reading of the proceedings and from the amount of industry put into the work, it speaks well of the other place that the Bill has been improved so much. Irrespective of some of the more confrontational issues that sometimes divide one House from the other, it remains possible greatly to improve a Bill as a result of the efforts of both Houses.
  I particularly congratulate the noble Baroness Anelay of St Johns, who played an enormous part in the proceedings. She would be the first to recognise that a certain friend of hers—she will know what I mean, if nobody else does—played an important role in helping her as the Bill progressed. Others also deserve special mention: the noble Lord Hunt of Wirral, the noble Lord Renton and the noble Viscount Bledisloe. I hope that I have not left anyone out.
  Mr. Heath: Lord Goodhart.
  Mr. Cash: And the noble Lord Goodhart. Baroness Scotland herself referred to the noble Lord Goodhart as having played a major part in the proceedings. It would be invidious, as I have mentioned so many peers, not to

  455
  mention the noble Lord Bassam of Brighton. Debating in either House depends on people being prepared to listen and to recognise a good point when it comes up. In fact, I would go further and point to the significant number of improvements that were made, some the result of consultation with various bodies—the Magistrates Association, the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees, the Justices' Clerks Society, the Association of Justices' Chief Executives, the trade unions and, of course, the Law Society. Many people have been diligently employed in trying to improve the Bill. I also congratulate the officials who have given such wise advice on the significant number of amendments that the Government have—surprisingly, in view of their attitude to amendments in other Bills—accepted.
  When votes took place, the margin was, in many cases, narrow. That applies to amendment No. 132, which goes to the heart of the important question of the amount of fees payable, and requires the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the need to facilitate access to justice. I shall deal with the matter in broader terms when we debate clause 1. The vote on that amendment—and I do not wish to cast aspersions on tile noble Lords who voted against it, because such things happen when the Whip is operating—showed that the Contents were 37 and the Not Contents were 36. That is a margin of one. Given the importance of some of the amendments, I hope that the Government will not be tempted to change some of the great improvements that have been made. Everything that I say today is without prejudice, because I hope that the amendments will be retained—
  Rob Marris: Subject to contract.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed. I also believe that further improvements will need to be made, and we shall carefully scrutinise the entire Bill.
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the closeness of one vote on an amendment, but on the very amendment that the Minister prayed in aid earlier as an example of how the Government had listened, the vote was 90 to 89—a single vote. So we must hope that there is no backsliding in this House.
  Mr. Cash: We have taken careful note of the narrowness of some of the votes and, as the hon Gentleman says, we hope that that will not lead to an attempt to reverse them. That would cause much unhappiness and lead to us perhaps changing our attitude to the Bill. After all, our attitude will depend on what the Government are prepared to accept, given the tremendous efforts made by all the parties concerned.
  The Minister mentioned the important question of access to justice, and that remains a critical question, together with people's financial ability to obtain justice. The two issues run together. I pay tribute to the original and sensible approach that has been adopted by the new Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, and I am glad to see that the Chairman of the Committee, the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), is in his place. In fact, several members of the Committee are present for the debate. It was an exercise not just in pre-legislative scrutiny but in
  456
  current legislative scrutiny. Theoretically, Bills can be referred to Committee by motion of the House and subjected to a process of cross-examination by counsel. That would happen in unusual circumstances, but it has happened on a few—very few—occasions. The procedure adopted on this Bill is novel, but encouraging, because it provides a method for considering issues that are complicated and esoteric, but of enormous importance. It ensures that the issues are weighed in the balance, and I was glad that it was followed in this instance.
  The questions that the Select Committee raised in its interesting report—which will have to be judged against the Committee stage in this place—include the issue of accessibility and court closure. The Committee suggested that the general duty in clause I should be framed in such a way as to impose on the Lord Chancellor a duty to provide a system that is accessible as well as efficient and effective. I hope that the Government would regard that as sensible, as a matter of principle. Reference has already been made to the question of the local courts boards, and it is also proposed that the Lord Chancellor should be required to consult them about decisions on places, dates and times of magistrates court sittings. That is also a sensible idea. What is the precise role of the courts boards? The Minister explained the Government's thinking to some extent, but we will need to pursue the matter further in Committee.
  The Select Committee also questioned the extent to which the proposal to make justices' clerks civil servants might affect the effective performance of their functions, and it also explored how proposed powers for new fines officers might impact on those on very low incomes. I have been deeply concerned for some time about the question of enforcement of fines, and we will want to examine closely the way in which the new fines officers' powers will work.
  Last year, indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) and I raised the issue of fines enforcement in magistrates courts. The then Parliamentary Secretary gave us a not very convincing answer. My question attempted to put the issue into a practical context. I said:
  "To give just one example, in London the latest figures show that the fines imposed in magistrates courts amount to £92 million but, astonishingly, the fines collected are no more than £41 million".—[Official Report, 15 January 2002; Vol. 378, c. 146.]
  I trust that the Government will address that issue in the consideration of the Bill, but we will have to wait for the Committee stage for details. Part of the problem is inability to pay, but it is also clear that there is some inefficiency in the system. I trust that that will be addressed.
  Yvette Cooper indicated assent.
  Mr. Cash: The Minister nods vigorously.
  The Select Committee also considered the need for a police presence to provide court security and the accountability of the proposed court security officers. An amendment was made in the Lords that required the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the need to facilitate access to justice when setting fees.
  Mr. Hogg: On the question of fees, which are to be determined exclusively by the Lord Chancellor with the

  457
  consent of the Treasury, after consultation with the judiciary and others, does my hon. Friend share my concern that there is no apparent duty to consult the users?
  Mr. Cash: I certainly do. I do not know whether my right hon. and learned Friend anticipates the possibility of serving in Committee on the Bill, but I suppose that that will be for others to decide—
  Mr. Hogg: On previous occasions, I have volunteered and been turned down.
  Mr. Cash: I have no idea why that happened, and it is highly regrettable. My right hon. and learned Friend makes an important point and I trust that it will be pursued in Committee.
  Gareth Thomas: What is the position of the hon. Gentleman's party on fees and the apparent need for civil justice to be financed by their inexorable increase? Are the Conservatives comfortable with the fact that the current system seems to be run on the full recovery principle?
  Mr. Cash: The shorter answer, which will no doubt be developed in the Standing Committee, is that I have been uneasy for some time about the manner in which justice is seen to be done. The Law Society has pointed out that we could reach a state, as happened recently, when the whole justice system could be severely affected, as the hon. Gentleman described, so we need to examine the matter with extreme care.
  Gareth Thomas: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that response. Does he agree, however, that it was the Conservatives who, in 1992, introduced the idea that litigants should finance the system and that that has meant a huge inflation in court fees, often at the cost of access to justice?
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman has not quite picked up the implication of my allusion to the fact that we need to look at those matters again. I have a certain amount of sympathy with him on the point, irrespective of where difficulty arose in the past. In other words, I am not in favour of privatising the judicial system. It is not difficult for a Conservative to utter those words because the system must be, above all else, a public concern. Improvements in the management system could be made, which I would applaud, but that is not to say that the system itself and questions about fine levels and enforcement have to be related to justice rather than to other considerations. My views and those of the hon. Gentleman may not be that far apart, but I should prefer to leave detailed examination of the matter to the Standing Committee.
  The Select Committee also supported the proposed power to impose costs on third parties in cases of serious misconduct. The Committee also called for the draft of the regulations defining the scope of those powers to be made available when the House considers that part of the Bill—a proposal that has some merit.
  458
  I hope that I am not stealing the Select Committee Chairman's thunder by mentioning all those matters, but it is important that we take account of an important and newly distinguished Committee, which has gone to the trouble of examining the Bill. I sincerely trust that those matters will be carefully considered in the Standing Committee.
  My next point relates to family courts. The Law Society has made it clear to me that it welcomes the Bill. When the Auld review produced its vast, voluminous tomes, many people were uncertain about whether the measure was a good idea, as it appeared to introduce many radical changes. Not unnaturally, many conservative, and Conservative, people—incliuding me—wondered whether it really would be the best thing since sliced bread. However, after seeing how the matter was dealt with in the other place, all the people who had previously written to me expressing deep anxiety appear to have taken a much more measured view.
  The Law Society shares that view but remains concerned about the fact that family courts remain fragmented. The society
  "would welcome the establishment one administration body for the magistrates' courts, county courts and High Court".
  We should give serious consideration to that point in the Standing Committee. I am sure that the Minister already knows about the matter, but as she did not mention it in her speech, it seemed sensible for me to do so.
  Furthermore, to return to the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), we need to ensure a proper balance. No one would complain about efficiency, but it should not be at the expense of the most vulnerable people in the justice system. It is easy to talk about people convicted of speeding on the motorway in their fast Jaguars. They do not receive much sympathy, especially in cases of drink driving. As someone who once read the history of the common law, however, when I look back at the history of our courts I am deeply struck by the efforts that have been made over 600 years to ensure that the less well-off receive proper justice. We should always bear that principle in mind.
  Unification of the criminal courts is extremely important. However, although we need to make sensible use of resources, there are reservations about how the measure will work in practice, especially as regards venues. The needs of the parties must be taken into consideration. The place and manner in which court business is allocated must be carefully considered.
  I am extremely glad that the Government have made it clear that fines officers will not have the power to change the sentence of the court by increasing fines without the court's authority. That is an important principle and the Government made a sensible response.
  Some people who are fined have rather chaotic lifestyles—that seems a fair description—and are unable to pay their fines. It is important that the Bill makes it clear that, in considering cases of outstanding fines, fines officers should keep at the forefront of their mind whether people have the ability to pay, without prejudice to the fact that those who deserve a fine should pay it. I note the Minister's comments about discounts and so on. This point is really for the Standing Committee but it is important. A large proportion of people with fines to pay come from a particular

  459
  background. In responding to their requirements, it is also important to ensure that, even while having regard to the ability to pay, justice is properly done. 1 do not advocate the idea that just because someone comes from a difficult background they should not pay a fine, although when we consider parenting orders and so on, we can be in difficult territory.
  Mr. Hogg: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying, but it is for the court to determine the level of the fine. The court should take into account ability to pay when making the fine.
  Mr. Cash: Indeed. I should not have mentioned the case if my right hon. and learned Friend had not made that point, but a relation of mine—a young fellow—was fined so heavily for what was not a serious offence that he did not have the means to pay. He took the matter to the Crown court. The judge listened to him carefully and substantially reduced the fine. So the initial attempt to try over-impose on someone who had only limited means was rectified in that instance in the courts. I had better pass on from that point now, but I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention.
  On a rather technical point, there is no right of appeal against the decisions made in respect of pre-trial binding rules—in other words, the magistrate's right to vary the order if the circumstances change significantly—in criminal cases, including in the youth courts, although such rights are important.
  We have touched on the broader issue of access to justice, and I have dealt with that sufficiently in principle, so I can let it rest for the moment. However, I feel strongly that access to the courts is a constitutional right, which should not be barred by excessive court fees in the Government's attempt to recover the cost of the civil justice system. For that reason, it is important that, in setting the fees, the Lord Chancellor should be required to consider access to justice. That point is reflected in the report by the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department.
  Without prejudice to anything done under any previous Government, some important points need to be taken into account in relation to amending judicial salaries—another contentious issue. I simply make the general observation that, as the Law Society has pointed out, most other English-speaking jurisdictions, including the United States and Australia, and many European jurisdictions, have rejected the notion that the civil courts system should pay for itself. It is accepted that individuals receive some benefit when they use the court system and that, accordingly, they should pay fees, but the public function of the courts must be recognised. Speaking as a solicitor myself, I certainly feel it necessary to say from the Dispatch Box that I recognise the importance of that statement.
  Continual increases in court fees discourage citizens from using the courts, which encourages further increases in fees. Failure to invest in the courts system leads to the courts providing a poor service, and the combination of expense and poor services will further drive citizens away. All hon. Members would agree that that would not be in the interests of justice or in those of the people whom we seek to represent.
  460
  I should also like to refer to a number of points in relation to the Magistrates Association, which has diligently suggested amendments to those who sit in the other place. The association's original main concerns were the role and function of the courts administration council, now called courts boards; consultation with magistrates at local justice area level, which is very important; the size and number of local justice areas; and recruitment strategy for magistrates.
  Rob Marris: This is perhaps a tangential point, but, like the hon. Gentleman, I am a solicitor and a member of the Law Society. Has the Magistrates Association considered clause 13? It seems surprising that the bar on people continuing as lay magistrates after the age of 70 will be statutorily continued under the Bill, given that—as he will know, given his great interest in matters European—under article 13 of the treaty of Amsterdam, we in this country will have to outlaw age discrimination by the end of 2006. Does he find that provision's inclusion surprising?
  Mr. Cash: I never cease to be amazed but am unsurprised by anything on such matters that comes from the European Union. I can only say that I have said repeatedly that I suspect that the white book and all the rules of procedure that are prescribed at the moment by our domestic courts will require revision. I said that during the proceedings on the Nice treaty. Under the proposed constitution—if it were to be adopted by way of an Act in this country, heaven forbid—the enhanced powers of the European Court of Justice would have a powerful impact on how such matters have to be interrelated, but that issue is probably best left to consideration in Committee.
  The other matters that the Magistrates Association had wanted to clear up were the grounds for removal of magistrates; the training of magistrates; and the whole question of fines officers, which we have touched on already. In fact, the association's deep concerns at the beginning have been largely dealt with, and it has told me unequivocally that amendments in the other place have fully met some of its concerns and greatly improved the situation in relation to others. However, as with the others who have made representations, the association is anxious that none of those gains should be lost and there are still points on which it would wish to press for further changes in the Bill.
  For example, the association found the original proposals in relation to the rule and function of courts boards totally unsatisfactory, and it still suggests that the new structure could be highly centralised. Again, that point will need to be considered. On striking the balance between the efficiency of the local administration with access to local justice and ensuring that the powers given to the Lord Chancellor and others do not result in over-centralisation, we find that the proposals are somewhat driven by cost considerations, because that is a Treasury function. We must not have something that looks as though it will achieve good local administration—very much a local concept—only to find that the imposition of Treasury requirements results in greater centralisation.

  461
  The Government have indicated that they are keen that the courts boards should have a non-executive role and the Bill has been improved, but that is a somewhat contentious issue. The Magistrates Association certainly believes strongly that there should be full executive power. That issue is extremely important. Magistrates need to be able to ensure that they have full authority to carry out the job, and I suspect that it is valid to suggest that it will be necessary to strengthen the role of magistrates and courts boards. That is why I mentioned the issue that the Select Committee raised about the precise nature of the courts boards' role.
  The association also considers it a matter of great importance that the number of courts boards should not be lower than 42. I have to confess that I am not absolutely convinced about why 42 was the chosen number.
  Mr. Heath: It is the number of police authorities.
  Mr. Cash: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the answer. On the basis that the courts boards should be coterminous with the current police authorities, that suggestion makes a great deal of sense.
  On consultation, the Government new clause that lays a duty on the Lord Chancellor to consult lay justices on the performance of their duties, rather than on the administration of the courts, was extremely important, but it is even more important that such consultation should be complete. I say only this: the word "consultation" is not interpreted as I heard the Leader of the House mention with regard to the Intelligence and Security Committee the other day on the "Today" programme. I was certain that he said that it was necessary to obtain the Committee's consent as to whether the Prime Minister could expunge the record of the report of that Committee. The word "consultation" means no more than that people's comments will be listened to responsibly, but without the obligation to act on them. I issue this caveat: in this important area, in which lay justices' performance of duties are involved, something stronger than consultation may be needed, such as words to the effect that consultation should have regard to the performance of their duties. I do not intend to prejudge the Committee stage, but certain matters must be considered in principle on Second Reading, and that is one of them.
  With respect to the size and number of local justice areas, it is incredibly important that the local justice areas remain local. The great distances that are already travelled following court closures and amalgamations undoubtedly put a significant strain on the courts system and undermine local justice. I have had reason to mention this previously in the House. Many Members have had court closures in their constituencies, and they cause a great deal of justifiable concern, particularly when the court closure is followed by a lack of access to justice. Elderly people, whether witnesses, defendants or victims, cannot simply jump into cars at the drop of a hat. If somebody has to drive an unfair distance, or no bus service is available, a severe restriction is put on the manner in which people acquire not only local justice but real justice. We need to bear that in mind.
  462
  Police are having to spend more time coming to court for criminal matters, and I am glad that clause 30, which was amended in another place on Report, and further amended on Third Reading, specifies that
  "the Lord Chancellor shall have regard to the need to ensure that court-houses are accessible to persons resident in each local justice area."
  That clause is very important. I re-emphasise that the amendment accepted by the Government must not be disturbed in proceedings in Committee, which would be a retrograde and unwarranted step.
  On the question of justices' clerks, the amendment to the new clause retained a specific link through assigning a clerk to specific local justice areas, and ensuring that the benches, through their chairmen, were consulted before any change of assignment. The question of whether all these matters will be retained in the Bill is one on which I look to the Minister to reply in the wind-up. My hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), who will wind up for the Opposition, will no doubt keep a watchful eye on that.
  I have raised the question of the high sheriffs previously with the Parliamentary Secretary. My point was that the removal of high sheriffs from rolling high court enforcement will break the link between the high sheriff and the under-sheriff. That has certain consequences of grave concern to both, because in the past, the under-sheriff has offered the incoming high sheriff an indemnity against litigation that might be brought by aggrieved debtors. I asked whether the Lord Chancellor's Department would indemnify the high sheriffs in any outstanding period between Royal Assent and the point at which the statutory limitation became legally effective. Bearing it in mind that I only get one shot at Lord Chancellor's questions, we will have much more opportunity to pursue the matter in Committee. In a nutshell, the hon. Lady's response was that one of the reasons for the change was that it was felt that it was unfair for a volunteer to be under certain legal obligations and to carry such a responsibility. As for the time between Royal Assent and the continuation of the indemnity, she said that that would be looked at and consulted on. I assure her that we, too, will look at the matter again in Committee, and we will insist that it is dealt with properly.
  The question of compensation can be dealt with in Committee, other than to say that this matter arose in the 1970s with respect to the loss of emoluments. On the face of it, under-sheriffs face a loss of emoluments as a result of the Bill. A memorandum was prepared at that time, to which we will refer in Committee, which was dependent on what is known as the Crombie code. It dealt with how compensation could be paid and came into effect in the context of the Courts Act 1971. I simply put on notice that this is a matter that is as yet outstanding, and I do not think that it was dealt with in the other place. It is therefore a matter to which we will want to return in Committee.
  Having said all that, the content of the Bill is greatly improved, which is a measure of the good sense on both sides of the House in the other place, and of the industry that was put into it. I hope that we will reflect on that on Third Reading. The Bill can be improved, and has been improved, and I hope that in Committee it will continue to become better and better.
  6.58 pm
  Stephen Hesford: It is rather strange to follow the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash), who opened for the official Opposition. Perhaps you, too, Mr. Deputy Speaker, did not hear the word "welcome" fall from his lips in relation to this Bill. He is out of touch with members of the public not only on Europe but on why the Bill is before the House: namely, because it is of the Government's reform agenda. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor spoke earlier of the economic reform agenda, and previously we discussed the reform agenda for the health service, which Opposition Member,' opposed in respect of foundation hospitals. Today' debate has shown that Opposition Members do not understand why the Government have taken on reform of the courts service, which is not the usual agenda, it is often said, of the Labour party.
  The hon. Gentleman disclosed no policy on behalf of the Opposition. Indeed, he disclosed no principle underlying anything that he said, and hon. Members may have been taken aback by his opening remarks. When he went through what had happened in the other place, which considered the Bill extensively in eight separate Committee sittings, he described a number of amendments that were passed by one vote and issued what was tantamount to a threat: that this House should not look again at any part of the Bill. My hon. Friend the Minister might accepted those amendments, and they might remain in the Bill, but it does not behove the hon. Gentleman to issue a threat to this House not to exercise its jurisdiction to examine the Bill afresh and do what it likes on full consideration.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that many of the amendments were passed at the instigation of the Government and in response to the sensible recommendations of Members on both sides of the other House. If I may say so, the hon. Gentleman is speaking a lot of rot.
  Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman says that, but I have carefully followed the process by which the Bill has come before the House. There are several reasons why it has done so, some of which are pertinent to the debate. First, the Bill recognises that things need to be addressed; and, secondly, there is an interest on the street in the process being reformed. Those reasons matter because, as I have said already, this is not a traditional area of Labour policy or an issue that is often looked at or is easy to look at, so I congratulate my hon. Friend the Minister and the Lord Chancellor on introducing the proposals.
  We must look at what is being said and—I have touched on this already—at what is being said about what is being said. We also need to look at the proposals. The Bill is timely and, as someone who has served in Committee on two major Bills relating to the reform agenda, I welcome it. Other hon. Members will have served on those Committees—that considering the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, which was broadly opposed by the Opposition, and that dealing with the Criminal Justice Bill, which is going through the other place at the moment. They are major parts of the reform agenda and form part of a whole package of measures. The Home Office is also considering reform of the police agenda. Again, that is all part of modernising the criminal justice system and improving access to justice.
  464
  The Lord Chancellor and Government must be taken at face value when they say that they are genuine in their desire for reform. A more difficult issue is whether the reforms go far enough, and I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to view the Bill as just one stage in an ongoing process, not the last word in it. Having said that, for reasons that I have given before, the fact that the agenda is being tackled at all is a radical proposition in itself.
  I carefully studied proceedings in the other place, and I formed the impression that the radical nature of the agenda often was not picked up in some of the criticisms that were voiced. The Lord Chancellor and his team deserve our support and merit our congratulations.
  I want to take a few moments to trace the history of the Bill, which was a manifesto commitment. Following that commitment, the Lord Chancellor commissioned Sir Robin Auld to conduct a review, which reported in October 2001. A White Paper, "Justice for All", was published in July 2002, and we now have this Bill, which is divided into nine parts.
  Part 1, which is welcome, deals with modernising and maintaining the court system. Clause 1 lays a duty on the Lord Chancellor to provide an "efficient and effective system" to run the courts service. As I said to my hon. Friend the Minister in an intervention, the Lord Chancellor will be under a duty to lay a report on how the new system is working before both Houses of Parliament within 18 months of the Bill's enactment, which is a good thing.
  Mr. Cash: The hon. Gentleman has made one or two disparaging remarks that have fallen a bit like water of a duck's back. I want to test him. Does he agree with me that the word "accessible" should be included in the duty? After all, we are talking about access to justice. Does he agree with the Government in respect of the omission of that word?
  Stephen Hesford: The hon. Gentleman is being picky. According to any reasonable reading of clause 1, the word "accessible" is implicit.
  The new executive agency is a sensible departure under the Lord Chancellor's Department. Clauses 1 and 6 replace the Court Service and the 42 magistrates courts committees with a unified court system. That is a welcome departure for the reasons set out in the Auld review. The principle of the new agency will be designed in line with suggestions from the Prime Minister's Office of Public Services Reform, set out in March 2002. The White Paper, "Justice for All", says that it is designed to
  "deliver decentralised management and local accountability within a national framework of standards and strategy direction."
  At the moment, the system is too atomised. Although there is a local element, the lack of oversight means that there is inherent inconsistency, both in court provision and in how each court works. I welcome the fact that there will be national guidelines to govern the operation of the courts through a unified system.
  The local boards will ensure that the administration of courts is focused on the needs of court users and the local community more generally. I welcome the focus that has been placed on that point. Indeed, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, local people with local knowledge of the court systems will sit on the boards and provide local input. They will be overseen by a judge.

  465
  Clause 2 will allow flexibility in the discharge of duties in that, for the provision of judicial decision makers, functions and duties may be enacted to give more flexibility for judicial office holding.
  Part 2 deals with justices of the peace and contains provisions on how justices of the peace, district judges and magistrates should relate to each other. It will give magistrates national jurisdiction for the first time, which is a sensible reform. The Bill will abolish commission areas and petty sessions areas for the reasons set out by my hon. Friend the Minister. There will no longer be a requirement for residence, which the House will welcome because it will create a more flexible system for the appointment of justices. The Bill will create local justice areas, which may be varied by order. Lay justices will be assigned to a local justice area but a new departure will mean that lay justices will be able to sit anywhere in the country—not only on the bench to which they are assigned—provided that administrative arrangements are made with local boards and the Lord Chancellor's Department, which will increase flexibility.
  David Taylor: I am a member of the Magistrates Association. The association welcomes that specific provision, subject to the important proviso that no magistrate should be required to sit on a bench on which he or she does not wish to sit.
  Stephen Hesford: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for that intervention because he speaks from experience, which is always welcome in the House, and he raises an important point. My reading of the Bill does not suggest that there will be any form of coercion—my hon. Friend did not use that word but he implied it. There will be flexibility to allow lay justices to be moved around should they want to perform their duties elsewhere or if there is business to be transacted elsewhere. That is not possible at the moment and, indeed, I know that many cases are held up because benches are not available, whether that is because of a shortage or because insufficient benches can be found to take up business. Years ago on our circuit, we were held up by having to wait for stipendiary magistrates to be bussed in to clear the backlog. The new system is designed to address that problem. The hon. Member for Stone talked about access, but the reform is designed entirely to deal with access. If I am wrong about that, I shall allow him to intervene. I notice that the hon. Gentleman has stayed in his seat.
  Part 3 deals with changes to magistrates courts. I especially welcome the reform proposed in clause 45, which will give magistrates the same power to issue pre-trial rulings as in higher courts—Crown courts and the High Court. Allowing binding rulings to be issued to bring pre-trial hearings in line with procedures for the Crown court is a timely reform. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) mentioned solicitors who take advantage of the system to string cases out simply by trying to secure adjournments for spurious reasons. The reform to allow binding rulings to be issued represents an attempt to tackle that.
  Vera Baird: Although I agree with what my hon. Friend says, is it not imperative that the right of appeal
  466
  against such binding rulings exists from the outset? In default of that, a trial can only go all the way to its end, after which there may be an appeal if the defendant is convicted. If the ruling was wrong in the first place, the defendant must be retried and the original trial would have been a completely wasted effort.
  Stephen Hesford: I defer to my hon. and learned Friend in this sense: things must always be reviewable, but as long as neither side abuses the system the measure will be a valuable addition to the armoury of lay justices and deputy judges.
  I welcome clauses 49 and 50, which deal with reform of the family proceedings courts and youth courts. They will abolish the panels and require personal authorisation to be given to sit on those separate courts under rules made by the Lord Chancellor. That will allow for consistent authorisation of a person's fitness to sit on a specific session.
  Part 6 deals with judges and will make a simple, yet long overdue and welcome, amendment to the system. Clauses 63 and 64, as my hon. Friend the Minister said, will modernise judicial titles and change the presumption of gender in the Court of Appeal.
  Part 7 addresses procedure rules and practice directions and will allow for closer integration among all parts of the criminal justice system—magistrates courts, Crown courts and the Court of Appeal. It will establish a criminal procedure rule committee to allow the Lord Chief Justice, with the concurrence of the Lord Chancellor, to make directions governing practice in criminal courts. A similar system will exist to allow the president of the family division to make directions.
  I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to address only one thing in her winding-up speech. There is an attempt throughout the Bill to create a unified system, but there is considerable criminal jurisdiction in the divisional court. Although the divisional court is a hybrid court because it deals with other things, has any thought been given to a form of unification with the criminal jurisdiction exercised by the divisional court, which has great influence on the role and function of magistrates courts?
  Part 8 contains miscellaneous provisions. I welcome the provision to allow a single judge of the Court of Appeal to give procedural directions to speed up the work of that court, which was suggested by the Auld review. I welcome the change proposed in clause 98 to allow for periodical payments in personal injury cases. It is an excellent new departure that will benefit many claimants in the civil courts. The measure should allow civil courts to reach decisions on damages more quickly.
  In summary, I welcome the measures. I am saddened that the Opposition spokesman did not speak from a point of principle or with any enthusiasm for the measures, which are undoubtedly necessary and overdue. I look forward to sitting on the Standing Committee, if called upon to do so, and hope that the House gives the Bill a Second Reading.
  7.20 pm
  Mr. David Heath: The debate has been proceeding in a measured and meticulous way, as is appropriate for such an important subject as the administration of justice in this country.

  467
  The situation is bizarre. The Bill is presented by the Lord Chancellor's Department, but if the newspapers are to be believed we will not have a Lord Chancellor's Department by the end of the week. The excellent Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), will either have to recreate itself after just one report or find itself a new title.
  I say in parenthesis that we have long supported the idea of a ministry of justice with a Secretary of State responsible to this House. If that is the genuine reforming deal advanced by the Prime Minister, to which the hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) referred, it will be warmly welcomed by Liberal Democrats, but who can tell whether that is the case?
  Mr. Beith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way at such an early stage. Although I fully share his enthusiasm that we should have a ministry of justice, does he recognise that getting rid of the Lord Chancellor's Department raises important constitutional issues that require a fair measure of consultation which might not be possible in the time scale between now and Thursday?
  Mr. Heath: My right hon. Friend is right. All sorts of disentanglements will have to be made. One can only hope that whoever is responsible for the work of the important Lord Chancellor's Department has the opportunity to consult widely not only on the practicalities of establishing a ministry of justice, but on 1 he constitutional position that is bound up with that of the Lord Chancellor in his magnificence and the various roles that he performs in the judiciary, the legislature and the Executive. However, I must not prolong the debate by discussing a hypothetical situation other than to say that it will be an interesting development, if anything comes of it. We look forward with anticipation to future announcements.
  There is a great deal in the Bill that we welcome. It deals with necessary reforms to the judicial system. It is equally fair to say, however, that large parts of it gave cause for concern when it was first published. Those concerns were expressed widely by political parties in another place and outside Parliament among the ranks of the magistrates themselves, who after all are directly in the firing line of many of the reforms, and those who are involved in the court process. It is to the Government's credit that they have been persuaded—sometimes by dint of losing votes in another place; at other times, by acceding to persuasion—to improve the Bill substantially. For that reason, I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to oppose the Bill. However, we want further improvements and there must be no backsliding on the improvements already made because they are critical.
  As I raised in an intervention on the Minister, one of the key issues is the accessibility of the justice system. We all want economy and efficiency in any publicly funded system, but efficiency can be defined in a number of ways. If the concept of efficiency is defined in such a way as to make courts more remote from the community that they serve, less accessible and with greater barriers to involvement, that is not a definition of efficiency to which I can subscribe. I suspect that many people feel the same way.
  468
  In recent months, a succession of hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concerns about what is happening to the fabric of the court system in their specific areas. For far too long, the process of court closures—particularly, but not exclusively, in rural areas—has made the process of justice more remote from the communities that it serves. That is worrying for many reasons. It has an effect on the participants, because the defendants, victims, witnesses and the police and other agencies that have to attend the courts have to go further, which sometimes causes great personal difficulties. In addition, it has a corrosive effect on the confidence in the judicial system itself because it is allied to the withdrawal of other parts of the judicial and criminal system. People, especially in rural areas, often say, "We don't see our policemen any more. You've closed the local magistrates courts. To whom do we turn for the administration of justice?" They increasingly feel cut off from the process.
  Locality is important for the provision of an effective and efficient court service.
  Mr. Kidney: I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says, but does he accept that it is also important that court facilities are suitable to meet the demands of modern times? Does he also agree that accessibility involves other issues, such as more use of recorded evidence, video links and, crucially, public transport links to wherever the court is located?
  Mr. Heath: I do not in any way disagree with the hon. Gentleman. However, proximity is a factor. If courts are too far away, people lose confidence because they find it increasingly difficult to access the system irrespective of how good the facilities are that have been provided.
  Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Heath: I have not finished responding to the previous intervention, but I shall give way.
  Gareth Thomas: Is not the hon. Gentleman in danger of ruining his basic point? We are all in favour of local justice, but surely he accepts that other factors are at play, as has been said. One simply cannot have a magistrates court in every provincial rural market town in England and Wales. It is not possible. Any responsible Government have to accept the need to manage resources properly.
  Mr. Heath: It is interesting that that is an impossibility because it has been managed for centuries. We used to have a presumption of local justice administered by local people to local people. That is not an outdated concept. It is simply a matter of how resources are applied to achieve that objective. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman was going to make a more constructive point. The problem that I raise has been encountered by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) intervened on the Minister to welcome the fact that the court in his constituency, which was about to be closed, had been reprieved. I also welcome that. The Minister has shown some signs of turning around Government policy of recent years. A similar situation exists in Kingston upon Thames and there are other

  469
  instances, too. Perhaps the message has got across at long last that the issue is important. The fact remains, however, that it is not enshrined in the Bill.
  I agree with the evidence given to the Select Committee by Professor Bridges of the university of Warwick, who said that alongside the basic duty in clause 1 to maintain an efficient and effective system of courts, we should add the words "and accessible". I shall certainly press for their inclusion. That stipulation would apply not just to magistrates courts, but to the Supreme Court and the county court. Every level of justice must be accessible, not in the sense of the same proximity in geographical terms, but in terms of people being able to access the judicial system that they require.
  David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the pieces of evidence that shows the increasing inaccessibility of the shrinking magistrates court network is that, because local newspapers are much less likely to go to a town that is 15, 20 or 25 miles away, the coverage of the offences in question is that much more limited and so has less of an impact on criminality and the behaviour of people who believe that they can get away with it in every sense, their neighbours being unaware of the fact that they have been convicted of crimes?
  Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman makes an excellent point, which I know stems from his own experience. There are all sorts of factors. For instance, the availability of defence solicitors who are prepared to take on criminal work is reducing all the time, and one factor in their deciding to withdraw from criminal work is that they increasingly have to go to a remote magistrates court where the proceedings are often short and they lose half a day in their practice as a result. This is a key issue, which we shall not let drop in Committee, on which we need a great deal more clarity of policy than we have had hitherto.
  One of the problems has been that up to now there has always been a fogginess about who set the policy. Ministers say, "It's nothing to do with us, Guy. It's the magistrates courts committees that close the courts, unless we choose to reprieve them on appeal," and the magistrates courts committees say, "It's nothing to do with us. We are working within a budget and parameters set by the Lord Chancellor's Department and we have no choice other than to close local courts." I know for a fact that there are many courts whose closure plans are in abeyance awaiting the outcome of the Bill. Their magistrates courts committees do not want to close courts within their area, but know that they will have to unless the responsibility is moved somewhere else, in which case they can say that it is up to the Minister or the courts boards to do what they think is necessary. We need a clear policy that locality proximity is important in the administration of magistrates courts.
  Reference has already been made to the lack of inclusion of the family division in this unified process. We have to make the best and most effective use of the buildings that we have. Very often, co-location is an important part of the equation of maintaining a local judicial and magistrates presence in a smaller town. That needs to be addressed.
  470
  The second issue is exactly what the courts boards will do. To what degree will they have any role beyond the consultative, if they are to have any at all? How many will there be? We have heard the figure of 42, which is the same as the number of police authorities. I can see the argument for coterminosity between police, judicial and prosecution authorities, and so on. I am all for clarity in this issue, which enables proper accountability, but the Minister will understand that the geographical scope of police authorities is hugely different. We have some small county forces and some enormous joint forces. The Avon and Somerset constabulary is towards the upper end and Thames Valley, Greater Manchester and the West Midlands police cover large areas where the degree of local accountability will be very different. If we are moving to better local accountability in terms of police, built on a basic command unit, will the legislation have the scope and flexibility to enable the court systems also to move towards that new coterminosity that deals with a smaller unit that relates to the location in which people live and work? That again is something that we need to address.
  My third point concerns access denied by the fee structure. That has already been exemplified by the hon. Member for Stone and others. We know, largely because the Law Society has been fighting an effective battle on the issue, that that was a policy introduced by stealth by the previous Administration, which has little basis in a reasoned view of what ought to happen within our civil court system. Surely, the resolution of disputes by legal means is a public good, and something that we should want to happen. We should not create barriers that may produce less access in future.
  The Law Society said:
  "full cost recovery is wrong in principle, requires levels of fees that limit access to justice and is limiting court resources to such an extent that the inefficiency of the courts is undermining the Woolf reforms."
  The Civil Justice Council, the body that the Government have to consult, says:
  "the greatest threat to service provision is that fee increases may generate a vicious circle by dissuading potential litigants from using the courts, with the resultant reduced volume necessitating greater fee increases and more court closures."
  This is a serious issue, particularly if new costs result from efforts to improve the overall efficiency of the courts. We have already heard some of the difficulties involved with the IT systems that the Lord Chancellor's Department is trying to bring in. We know that that is an argument both for and against unification, in that one problem was the number of different magistrates courts committees trying to introduce the IT while at the same time the overall driving of the contract by a centralised Lord Chancellor's Department was a disaster. However, that is a matter that we need to address on another day.
  If those extra costs are to be loaded on to litigants, we will increasingly have a barrier to effective justice. We have a vicious circle whereby the fewer people who can access justice by this means, the greater are the costs that are loaded on those who do, which means that we end up with justice for the rich but not for the poor, and that cannot be right in our civil legal system.
  Mr. Hogg: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the House has little power to control the level of fees prescribed by the Lord Chancellor, not least because the order is subject only to the negative procedure?
  Mr. Heath: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a valid point. As far as I know, the policy has never been spelled out; it has simply become a matter of usage within the Department and within the administration of our courts, and that is not an acceptable way for us to be doing business. I hope that the Bill will be a vehicle to explore the matter more fully.
  There are clearly problems with the collection of fines, which it is right that we should address. One is whether fines officers will substitute their judgment for the judgment of the court in terms of its sentence. That is a legitimate concern that needs to be addressed. I hope that we will consider the collection and the administration of fines in the round and take a much more radical approach than we have hitherto. We debated the matter when we considered the Criminal Justice Bill. Because of the legislative incontinence of the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department we always have half a dozen Bills going on at the same time, all dealing with little bits of the same problem, and piecing them all together to make sense of what is happening is often difficult. There are ideas about different sanctions that can be applied to fine defaulters; not simply bullying them into paying but finding ways of sequestrating assets, for instance. One suggestion was to refuse access to a motor vehicle to someone convicted of a motoring offence who refuses to pay their fine. That seems a perfectly proper approach, which should be explored. The hon. Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois) put forward the idea—I shall mention it because he happens to be in the Chamber—that defaulting on a fine should be a blot on a person's credit rating as is a county court judgment. Why on earth not? If somebody is in a position whereby they can pay, but will not pay, there should be some sanction other than a simple procedure by the court. Those are matters that we should explore in more detail.
  My final point concerns third-party costs. The Parliamentary Secretary got herself into a bit of a muddle by saying that the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department was in a bit of a muddle—it clearly was not, because it was properly addressing the issue of the regulations that the Government intend to introduce. We need to see those regulations early on in the Bill's proceedings, before reaching the appropriate point in Committee.
  There is a huge amount of disquiet about the way in which cases are brought to court, but then cracked by the activities of some people in the media who do not seem to understand the consequences of their actions in promoting the stories of people involved in the case or directly paying witnesses or police officers. In the case of police officers, that is a disgraceful activity. The evidence given by senior editors in the newspaper world that they make such payments as a matter of course is not surprising, but it is a matter of extreme regret that we need to address. As regards witnesses whom people are firmly expecting to give evidence in the case concerned, newspaper editors have to be brought personally to heel. The bland assurances from the Press Complaints
  472
  Commission that everything is in hand and that changes in its own internal disciplinary measures are having the desired effect cannot be taken at face value. I had rather hoped that the new chairman of the Press Complaints Commission might have taken a less anodyne view of his responsibilities than would appear to be the case in his initial response to the recent case in question. I hope that we can take a robust line on that in Committee and that this House can arrive at a consensus that has some teeth in giving the courts the ability properly to deal with a significant nuisance.
  The Bill contains much that is good, as well as some measures that are an awful lot better than they were and some that still need to be improved. Overall, no one would deny that if we are to have an effective, efficient and accessible legal system, we can do better than the present arrangements allow for. Perhaps, under the tutelage of whoever emerges from the events that we are told may happen later this week—whichever personage finds themselves in charge—there will be an opportunity to improve matters. I hope that there will be coordination between Departments to bring the issues together so that we have a system that is understandable, comprehensive and comprehensible and can move forward in a reasoned way.
  7.43 pm
  Ross Cranston: I support the main thrust of the Bill: that is, the creation of unified administration for the courts, which has been widely accepted as a laudable aim. It came out of the report of Sir Robin Auld—an excellent report that has driven other legislation that has been introduced or passed by this House. Unification will introduce flexibility in terms of resources, allow a transfer of human resources—for example, between different courts—and generally make the administration of justice more efficient. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), I welcome the Bill on that basis.
  One aspect of unified administration is the introduction of courts boards as a move away from magistrates courts committees. One advantage of the new courts boards is that they will be more representative, because they will include not only magistrates, but court users and members of local communities, which is a very good thing. They will also have to develop annual business plans and scrutinise the work of court management, which will be subject to national inspection. That can only produce a more efficient court service. I very much welcome unified administration.
  The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) flagged up the Law Society's concerns about a unified family court system, although that is not part of the Bill. Other countries have that system, and that may well be the direction in which we have to go in future.
  The Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, of which I am a member, and which is ably chaired by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), asked how courts boards will work in practice. We were presented with conflicting evidence. The Magistrates Association said that they should be more managerial, while the Justices' Clerks Society were reluctant for judicial members to be involved in the boards if they were to deal with management. The

  473
  Committee recommended that the Government spell out to a greater extent how the boards will operate in practice, and I shall not resile from having signed up to that suggestion. I found the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) persuasive when she said that we should let courts boards develop organically, but it would be helpful to the House if in the course of the Bill's passage—by Third Reading, say—the Government could spell out with greater clarity how they expect them to do so.
  Let me comment on three specific aspects of the Bill before I address two more general issues. The first aspect is fine enforcement, which various hon. Members have mentioned. There is no doubt that we have to improve the fine enforcement system, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary—she was in her place a moment ago, but she has now moved away. Over 18 months, she has done a lot in terms of putting additional investment into the enforcement of fines, as well as making other changes such as getting access to defaulters' names and addresses from the Department for Work and Pensions.
  Improvements have occurred on the administrative side, too, and the Bill underpins those with some desirable legislative changes, which are generally accepted. For example, the Magistrates Association says that it is now satisfied that magistrates will retain judicial control of fine officers and that it is therefore prepared to support the proposal. It also supports the notion of piloting the range of sanctions to find out how vehicle clamping, discounts and so on work in practice before they are introduced nationally. That must be the way to go.
  One concern is the ability to pay. As some Opposition Members said, when fines are imposed the judge or the magistrate should take into account whether the defendant is able to pay. Often, however, that judgment will not be well informed, so when the enforcement officers turn up and try to extract the fine they have no luck. That is sometimes because there has been a change in the person's circumstances—for example, they were in employment, but are no longer, or thought that they would have the money to pay, but no longer have it.
  Of course, in some cases people refuse to pay, and the various sanctions that are to be piloted are therefore important. However, it is incumbent on us to draw the Government's attention to the notion of ability to pay. I welcome the fact that they are considering some sort of advice network, which will be developed in courts to provide support and advice for those who run into difficulties with paying fines.
  Mr. Hogg: Although I understand why the hon. and learned Gentleman welcomes such flexibility, I am sure that he wants to emphasise that fines are a penalty, which is intended—at least to some extent—to be a burden on those who have been fined.
  Ross Cranston: I agree. Perhaps I should have declared at the outset that I sit as a recorder. In the few cases that I get that warrant a fine, I am reluctant to impose one because the system of enforcement is so
  474
  discredited, and I want the penalty to bite. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was right to make that point. In those cases I impose a different penalty, although imposing a fine would be better if I knew that it would be paid.
  My second specific point is about improvements in court security. A couple of lamentable attacks on judges have occurred, and the Bill tries to deal with that. Several of my hon. Friends have mentioned the need to improve support for victims and witnesses. Victim Support already does that—for example, in Dudley magistrates court, where its representatives welcome witnesses, give support throughout the day and provide an excellent service. The Bill contemplates infringing civil liberties—through searches, for example—and we need not only administrative and financial measures but some legislative powers to support victims. I welcome the provisions on that.
  Thirdly, I want to consider periodic payments. The subject has a long history, and an important Law Commission report was produced on it a couple of years ago. In principle, periodic payments are a good idea because three, four or five years after an accident it is difficult to make a judgment, which covers a lifetime, about the amount of damages that should be paid. Periodic payments would tackle that difficulty. However, there are some problems with the Bill's proposals. My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) wanted to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, but had to attend a function. He would have raised those matters—and he may yet return.
  The Law Society raised the subject of part 36 payments, and the effect of periodic payments on them. Evidence was given to the Select Committee that periodic payments would give rise to satellite litigation. I do not accept that view, but it was presented to us. Another problem is that clauses 98 and 99 make periodic payments compulsory, which the Law Commission did not recommend. The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) should at least be aware that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon will approach her about periodic payments.
  I now want to consider the two general issues that arise from the Bill. Part 6 deals with judges and includes a long overdue provision about judicial titles in the Court of Appeal. Provisions covering magistrates appear throughout the Bill, including provisions for improving their training. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen), who is no longer in his place, mentioned the strength of the magistracy. I understand that it is under strength by some 3,000. I believe that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary may tell us in her winding-up speech that a national campaign to recruit magistrates will be conducted shortly. That is good.
  Clause 29 deals with the independence of justices' clerks. I understand that the Justices' Clerks Society is now happy with the provision, which underlines its members' independence. Part 5 includes a clause that provides that court inspection should not undermine judicial independence.
  Too often, we forget the crucial role of judicial independence in our constitutional framework. We need only consider countries such as Zimbabwe, where the

  475
  concept has been perverted, to appreciate the tragic consequences of not respecting judicial independence. We are fortunate in this country in having a higher judiciary that is not only expert but incorruptible. Again, perhaps I should declare an interest as a member of the Bar. I believe that incorruptibility derives front the fact that we have an independent Bar. Independence is a habit of mind, and the culture fosters independence and enables individual members to eschew conflicts of interest.
  Gareth Thomas: My hon. and learned Friend makes an important point about judicial independence, but does he accept that the way in which judges are appointed militates against that noble aspiration?
  Ross Cranston: I do not understand my hon. Friend's exact point. There may be a point about judges' representativeness, but the way in which they are appointed in this country strengthens the notion of judicial independence because, unlike what happens in the United States, there is no suggestion that appointments are made on a political basis.
  Vera Baird: Perhaps I am more bluntly spoken than my hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), but is not it fairly well known at the Bar that those who ingratiate get on? That does not encourage independence.
  Ross Cranston: I cannot accept my hon. and learned Friend's point. Judicial appointments are made neutrally, and depend on merit. Perhaps my hon. and learned Friend can give specific examples to cure my naivety, if naivety it be.
  Judicial independence requires mutual respect between institutions. The House must accept that some judicial review or sentencing decisions do not fit a specific political agenda. Sometimes the media approach me for comments on cases. They ask, "Do you want to comment on that sentence?" I am always reluctant to do that because I do not know the background, and I have not read the papers or heard the argument in court. We should be reluctant to condemn decisions immediately when we do not know the background.
  By the same token, there must be judicial deference. I have presented that rather unorthodox view for several years, even when the Opposition were in government. I said that judicial review was going too far, that judges had to respect the legitimacy of Parliament and that there was the matter of institutional competence. Judges are not always institutionally competent because they do not have access to the same range of information as Parliament. All I am saying is that judicial independence is a crucial aspect of our constitutional arrangements, but it requires mutual respect from both Parliament and the judiciary.
  The issue of access has been raised by the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) and others. I got the impression that the hon. Gentleman was talking about physical access, in terms of the courts being in the appropriate geographical area and providing access in that way. My hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) made the valid point
  476
  that there was a history of people being unable to travel long distances, but that in this day and age, although there was a case for having local courts, we had to take into account the fact that we could use video links, or provide good public transport so that people could get to the nearest large town.
  I accept the point about geographical access. I know that if there were any attempt to close down the Dudley magistrates court, I would be raising hell with the Minister. I think that we all, as local MPs, take a similar view. I would caution against taking that point too far, however. The Select Committee raised the issue of whether access to the court should be included in clause 1. Clause 82, as amended in the other place, already contains a provision that any power to make civil procedure rules is to be exercised with a view to securing that
  "the system of civil justice is accessible, fair and efficient".
  Changing clause 1 would, therefore, accord with how the Bill already reads.
  Court fees have been mentioned. That is one aspect of access to justice. My hon. Friend the Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) rightly pointed out that the notion of full costs recovery was introduced by the Conservatives when they were in government, and that we took it forward. We have modified it, and page 38 of the evidence in volume II of the Select Committee's report carries an explanation by the Lord Chancellor's Department of how court fees are set, in terms of trying to further the notion of promoting access to justice. It is pointed out, for example, that it is impossible to provide completely open access, that resource constraints
  "would militate against the removal of court fees for all",
  and that removing all court fees would result in "weak and unmeritorious claims". There is also an explanation of how fees are waived in particular cases.
  The more general point that I want to make is that the notion of access to justice is an extremely difficult one. Resources are an important dimension, as I have just mentioned. Another, which was touched on in the explanation by the Lord Chancellor's Department, is that we cannot provide for everyone in the community the same access as, for example, large corporations have to the commercial court in London. We have to be realistic about this; it is just not possible. We must, however, accord access to justice, and try to meet legal needs. There has been a great deal of research into legal needs, and into how many people have legal needs that are not met. We also have to provide a system of justice that will afford an avenue for people to vindicate their rights. There is no doubt about that.
  There are also collective benefits that result from any system of justice—the benefit of providing new law, for example. It is not just the individual who benefits from bringing a case and winning it; the case might lead to a beneficial change in the law. I commend my hon. Friend the Minister, because I have attended at least one seminar at which she has put forward the argument that providing access to justice can, in some cases, address issues of deprivation. I think that the argument is that—I am not putting this in her terms—sometimes problems come in clusters.

  477
  A person who is unfairly dismissed and loses their job, for example, might get into difficulty with their landlord, as well as being subject to strains in the family that might lead to family disputes. If we could address the first problem, the consequential problems might not arise. In such circumstances, we would be dealing with a situation in which providing access to justice not only provided benefit to the person winning or losing the case but had a wider social benefit. I congratulate the Law Society on its submission, because it raised the more general issue of the collective benefit that access to justice can provide.
  There are difficulties, however. We cannot provide unlimited access to justice. In a sense, we rank claims. We say, for example, that criminal claims should have first bite of the legal aid budget, because they involve the liberty of the subject. We then try to rank other kinds of claims. We rank immigration claims quite highly, because in some cases they deal with the right of people to claim asylum. It is difficult, however, after ranking important claims such as those, to rank other claims. Should we, for example, rank the claim of a tenant over that of an employee, or that of a personal injury victim over one involving family matters?
  I do not have time to address this point, and it goes well beyond the provisions of the Bill, but I believe that we have to be a lot more inventive about the way in which we provide access to justice institutionally. I have always been a great proponent of small claims courts, and there are further alternative dispute resolution methods that can provide suitable access to justice.
  David Taylor: My hon. and learned Friend mentioned that he had always been a major proponent of small claims courts. I have sent debts owed to me to a small claims court when I was operating as a freelance accountant, and sometimes found it very difficult to enforce the judgment of the court. Does my hon. and learned Friend regret that—so far as I can see—there are no provisions in the Bill to extend the improved powers of fine enforcement from magistrates courts to the civil end of the spectrum? That is a real need that must be met.
  Ross Cranston: There is a problem there, and my hon. Friend is not the only one to have obtained a successful judgment in a small claims court, only to have problems in enforcing it. We must address that issue. There is a consultation paper on enforcement; a report was also made to the Lord Chancellor's Department on the issue. Enforcement is absolutely vital. I am digressing much too far from the Bill, but I must say that I was always a proponent of a separate system of small claims courts—as is found in other countries—rather than putting such cases into the county courts. That would create a whole new culture in terms of their operation; that, however, is a subject for another day.
  8.8 pm
  Mr. Humfrey Matins: May I declare an interest as a solicitor, a recorder of the Crown court and a deputy district judge? I want to try, in the few minutes available to me, to be helpful to the Government and to
  478
  focus on the issue of fines, especially those matters covered in clauses 36 and 37 and schedule 3 of the Bill. The ladies and gentlemen who drafted those provisions are undoubtedly well intentioned, but equally certainly, they lack an understanding of the real world of the courts in which some of us sit, week after week, in the tougher parts of London. Increasingly, I find policies enshrined in Bills of 120 clauses—Bills that need have no more than 20 clauses—which have very little relevance to what is going on in the real world.
  The scandal of unpaid fines—it is a shocking scandal, particularly in the London area—needs to be drawn to the attention of a wider audience. We all know that the vast majority of criminal cases are decided in the magistrates courts. We also know that the vast majority of disposals in the magistrates courts take place by way of fines. Public confidence in the policies governing the imposing and collecting of fines is therefore vital; without it, the system would lose all credibility.
  Thousands of defendants in the London magistrates courts—there are 20 or more tough magistrates courts within a 10 or 15-mile radius of the House—are putting two fingers up to the legal system and the judiciary by refusing to pay fines that are now becoming almost voluntary, and by and large they are getting away with it. In 2001–02, the fines imposed by magistrates courts in the Greater London area amounted to £77 million. One might expect most or all of that to have been recovered, and one might expect most of those who had defaulted on purpose to have received a short sharp custodial sentence. Far from it: nearly £42 million of the £77 million was, in effect, written off—remitted by the courts as being unrecoverable, or written off in itself. That amounts to nearly 60 per cent. of the fines imposed.
  Why are the fines not collected? It is not hard to understand the reasons. Let us suppose that you and 1, Madam Deputy Speaker, were brought before a court and fined. No doubt we would try to pay promptly—indeed, Madam Deputy Speaker, you might pay more promptly than I. But let us picture a court in which a defendant is appearing before a district judge for non-payment of fines. What will the district judge do?
  There was a time when it was relatively straightforward to impose a custodial sentence on an absolute defaulter, but it is now becoming rather difficult. The court has to go through a series of questions before it can take a really harsh view. That is set in stone. It should be remembered that the defendant will have been fined a few weeks ago, and that the question of his or her means will have already been dealt with. He or she is before the court as a non-payer.
  The court, strangled by regulation week after week, must take a number of laborious procedural steps before it can consider a custodial sentence for non-payment. Would an attachment of earnings order be right? Most people who appear in the London courts are out of work or else claim to be, so there is no point in that. What about a deduction of benefit? The most that can be deducted is £2 a week, and the process costs more than the result. What about sending in the bailiffs—a power trumpeted by the Minister earlier today, and referred to in the Bill? That policy has been around for years. It is utterly ineffective. Most defendants who are not going to pay have few items of value, or, if they have some, secrete them. Bailiffs give plenty of notice before calling,

  479
  and I venture to suggest that the recovery of fines through their visits amounts to very little. No doubt the Minister can give me the figures.
  What about an action in the county court? That is too expensive, because the magistrates court must pay the summons fee. What about a money payment supervision order? What is that, it may be asked? It merely passes the defendant to the probation service, which, apparently, tries to help the defendant to pay but provides no sanction when it comes to an unwilling payer. Then there is the absurdity of the attendance centre order, which can only be made against those under 21. The courts have got wise to the fact that such orders are not harsh. It is a clear understanding among the judiciary that they usually mean a young person popping down to the attendance centre to play a computer game for an hour or two, and that is the end of the story. The orders are not actually made. It is a procedural nightmare, and it is an ineffective system—often made the more galling for those sitting in judgment by the obvious ring of the mobile phone in the defendant's pocket while he is explaining why he cannot pay the fine.
  What about custody? Strictly speaking, even today, if a defendant is found guilty of wilful neglect or culpable refusal to pay the fine, it is possible eventually to impose a custodial sentence; but believe me, it is necessary to go through all the processes I described earlier—laboriously, for hours—before it is possible to get anywhere near that.
  Mr. Kidney: The hon. Gentleman said earlier that the courts were strangled by regulation, but is not the situation that he has described a consequence of High Court judgments? Has not the law led to the procedure in the magistrates courts? Is he calling for legislation to make it easier to send people to prison for not paying fines?
  Mr. Matins: I am afraid I am. I will be blunt. It is time to make it easier to send people to prison for non-payment of fines, and to give courts discretion to do so. While the number of unpaid fines is going up and up, the number of relevant custodial sentences is going down and down. In 2001, only 42 people received custodial sentences. A couple of years earlier more than double that number received such sentences, and even more received them before that.
  There was a time when fines were recovered much more effectively. A metropolitan stipendiary of my acquaintance would look at his list of, say, 30 fine defaulters at 10 am, and summon them. He would have the first three up one by one, and, if not entirely satisfied by their explanations, would immediately commit them to prison for a fortnight. He would say to the other 27, "Why don't you wait in the hall, and make a couple of phone calls if you want?" A couple of phone calls? There would be at least 27. The money would be pouring in by lunchtime, and the first three were usually released by teatime anyway. That is how it worked.
  I am not saying that we should return to that arrangement immediately; I simply say that we must understand that there are thousands of fine defaulters in the London area who could pay but will not pay. These are the young people who say, "I am out of work"—but
  480
  then the mobile phone rings, and in answer to a question they will say, "Yes, I smoke 20 cigarettes a day and drink two pints of lager a night. Why the hell shouldn't I?" There is an answer to that: the fine comes first. But it does not. Young people who do not want to pay—and it is mostly young people—are putting two fingers up to the whole legal system.
  I hope I may be forgiven for saying this, but those who come to court wearing suits and apologise profusely for not insuring their cars owing to an oversight pay immediately. Those in work pay. What about those who are out of work, or not quite out of work? That is where we will need a much tougher approach.
  Let us have a little look at what the Bill does. I am not sure that it does an awful lot. I offer a word of advice to the Government. It is not perhaps entirely the fault of the fine defaulter. We must have a sensible policy on collecting and imposing fines. Across London and in many parts of the country the fines imposed are not realistic: they are too high. What is the point of having a guideline? Who issues these guidelines? I have never taken any notice of them. Someone must issue them. Is it the Lord Chancellor's Department or the Court of Appeal? Perhaps the Minister will tell me. Somebody somewhere issues guidelines to magistrates. What is the point of a magistrate imposing a £600 fine on someone for no insurance on a motor car when the car is worth only 150 quid? That is the reality in London. In the days of the wild west the young man needed his horse, and in the same way the young man in London needs his wheels, and they cost 150 quid a time. Imagine fining someone six times the value of his car for no insurance. There would be a few red faces in the House. It is unrealistic.
  Mr. Beith: Surely the purpose of insurance is not to enable the gentleman to replace the car—he has probably only got third party insurance—but to ensure that someone who is injured by his activities is covered for the injury and damage that they suffer.
  Mr. Matins: The right hon. Gentleman is right, but my point is slightly different. We must recognise the world in which someone gets their wheels for a couple of hundred pounds and does not insure the car. They are wrong, and perhaps it is time for a national compulsory third-party insurance scheme funded by the state. People could buy comprehensive insurance as a top-up. I have often argued for that. Many of these youngsters do not insure their cars.
  I do not know what my car is worth—I wish I had not started that sentence. Let us assume that hon. Members in the Chamber have cars worth a modest £5,000—I really wish I had not started this argument. What is the point of fining someone £20,000, which is four times the value of the car? It breaks people. There should be a realistic fine. I would much rather a low fine and disqualification than an absurd fine that will not be paid. Fines should be realistic. We should find out what will work, so that we have a better chance of collecting the fines.
  What does the Bill do? It is terrific stuff. I am told that the Lord Chancellor, in a pilot area, can designate a fines officer, whose role it will be to manage the

  481
  collection and enforcement of fines. Well, there we are. As I understand it, the court will impose a fine and will hand over enforcement to the fines collection officer. This gets better by the moment. Who is the fines officer? Is it the clerk to the justices or a court employee? Does the person work in the building? Do they have judicial training, and are they part of the judiciary? Will it be a full-time post?
  I understand that discounts will be available if the collection order—apparently, there is something called a collection order—requires the fine to be paid within a specified period and it is paid before the expiry of that period. That sounds terrific, but just imagine the bureaucracy involved in calculating discounts.
  I have a serious question for the Minister. I may be on to a good point, but I am not sure. I understand that these discounts are available when there is a collection order, and there is a collection order when someone is fined and they are given time to pay. Does the person who receives the following homily from the magistrate have a discount? The magistrate says, "Stand up, Smith. You've pleaded guilty to drunken driving, you're fined £500 and disqualified for one year"; and Smith says, "I'll pay straight away" and out comes the money. I am not sure that a collection order has been made. I will be corrected if I am wrong. If it has not, is there a discount for such a person? I simply do not know.
  Funnily enough, I have never been much of a fan—[Interruption.] The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) intervenes on me mildly from a sedentary position to the effect that he has never come across someone paying a fine straight away. Sometimes people do. I did. Perhaps I should not have said that. It was 25 years ago on a speeding charge, but that is all by the way. If people pay straight away, do they get a discount? That is a serious point. I am not happy about some judicial functions moving to the collections officer. I think that the collections officer has the power to say, "We'll extend this a bit". I shall be corrected if I am wrong, but as far as I can see he or she has the power to vary a decision by a district judge. If that is right, I am not sure that it is a good idea. I should very much like that point to be considered.
  To top everything, there is an appeals system against a fines officer's decision. That is a recipe for bureaucracy. The fines officer, who will be a shining example, has to serve notice on the defendant that he intends to do something. That is most interesting. It is good news that the fines officer will write to the defendant saying that he will enforce the fine by a certain method, thus inadvertently giving the defendant notice that he can so arrange his affairs as not to have to pay the fine.
  The Bill contains the majestic little passage that says that the fines officer can issue a distress warrant. We have done that before. It is as though we have never had such a policy, but it has been in existence for X number of years. It beggars belief that the Minister should suggest that the fact that the distress warrant is now in the hands of the fines officer, as opposed to the magistrate, is a new development that will really help.
  Then there is registering the fine in the register of judgments. That is irrelevant. I cannot think of a defendant in the Camberwell Green area who would be
  482
  the slightest bit concerned whether the fine was registered in the register of judgments or not; ditto on the attachment of earnings order and—this is the best bit—on the taking of other steps. I do not know what other steps the fines officer will take, except the new, magic clamping order to fit an immobilisation device on a vehicle that is registered in the defendant's name. This is a serious point. If a car is registered in a person's name, they could lose their livelihood and job if their car is clamped. That may be a minor problem.
  I think that the Bill provides that the vehicle that is to be clamped and seized must be registered in the defendant's name. The Minister must correct me straight away if I am wrong, because otherwise the next 15 seconds of my speech will be completely irrelevant. She has not done so, so I assume that it is right that the vehicle must be registered in the defendant's name. Does anyone believe that any of these vehicles in the east end are registered in the defendant's name or in anyone's name? Of course they are not, and it is nonsense to suggest that. I do not think that anyone has been down the Old Kent road or sat at Thames court.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): I live there.
  Mr. Malins: The Minister says that she lives there, but she does not spend time at Thames court in Bow and Poplar. The truth is that cars are not registered. People who get their cars registered in their name, pay their fines.
  This is the absolute clincher. What happens if the defendant removes the clamp from his vehicle? He can be fined!
  8.29 pm
  Gareth Thomas: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins). He made an amusing speech and we have benefited from his experience as a recorder. Judging from what he has told us, I certainly would not want to appear before him either as a defendant or a lawyer. He talked a lot of sense, as did my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), who gave an account of the chaos in the fines collection system. It is a travesty and a scandal, as the hon. Member for Woking said, that the fines system is something of a voluntary system. Something must be done about it but I do not share his scepticism because I think that the Government have taken on board the fact that there is a need to improve performance.
  Performance in different parts of the country varies greatly. The collection rate is 40 per cent. in some, and 80 per cent. in others. If ever there were an illustration of why the system needs to be modernised and reformed, that is one. There are others. That is the principle behind the Bill. It goes a considerable way to modernising our rather ad hoc criminal justice system, which is the product of historical accident and accretion from the time of the Norman kings, Henry I and the Plantagenets.
  The system is in need of reform. Magistrates courts committees are an outmoded way of dealing with the need for an efficient and local system of summary justice. The Government are right to take account of the

  483
  public interest in ensuring a credible criminal justice system. We will probably have to revisit the subject in a few years but we must surely all agree with the principle behind the Bill, which is to ensure a more effective and efficient system. There is a case for unifying the administration of the various courts, which is the basis of clause 1.
  The Bill is the product of considerable consultation and deliberation. The Government have been most intelligent in their response to the various arguments. I have had the privilege of appearing before various magistrates courts as a lawyer. Some of them were in pretty awful buildings that were inadequate, inappropriate and insecure. One could not have a private conversation with a client. Local courts need to be in physical proximity to population centres but that must be qualified by the need to ensure appropriate court buildings.
  It is sometimes exasperating to appear before a bench of local magistrates. That reminds me of an experience that I had appearing with a colleague at the Bar, who in his exasperation and frustration in being unable to get a point over to the magistrates was driven to say, "Your worships, I always thought that a bench was something thick and immoveable and you are no exception."
  Those comments do not apply to our Front-Bench team and I am probably driven to say that they do not apply to those on the Opposition Benches either. A lot of good sense has been spoken in the debate. The Government have made a commitment to maintain the lay magistracy. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to re-emphasise that commitment in her reply. It is essential that the pluralism of our society is maintained. A healthy civil society must be committed to ensuring that there is a strong connection between criminal justice and local lay representatives but there is a need for a new Executive agency and the Government are to be congratulated on grasping that nettle.
  Of course, there is tension between the understandable pressure on central Government to make resources go further and the need to ensure that justice is local. The Government have grappled with that. I am pleased that they moved, as I understand it, an amendment to require local boards to be consulted by the court agency. That is a safeguard. It will ensure that there will be a proper and appropriate local connection when justice is dispensed in magistrates courts—over 90 per cent. of criminal cases are dealt with by magistrates courts—but there is a need to ensure a more efficient central system.
  Other measures in the Bill are long overdue. We have heard reference to the chaotic system of fines collection. The power to enact pilot schemes is an effective way of proceeding. There is no monopoly of wisdom on how to do it but we need to deal with the matter. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is well aware that there is a crisis that undermines people's confidence in the credibility of our criminal justice system.
  There are clauses dealing with the need to bring about procedural changes, aligning the procedure in the Crown courts with that in the magistrates courts. That is overdue, as are the welcome provisions to improve court security. There is a brave stab at codification of criminal procedure. It comes to something when one hears judges sitting in the court of criminal appeal decrying the over-484
  complex nature of criminal law and procedure. There is a need for us to look again at that and to codify the procedure.
  Reference has already been made to the corrosive effect of cheque-book journalism on the outcome of criminal cases. It is welcome that the Bill will allow, in the context of criminal proceedings, third party costs orders, which have been made under civil jurisdiction for some time, to be made in criminal courts. That may put a useful brake upon the abuse of the system carried out by unscrupulous journalists. A number of notable cases have come to grief because of abuse by the press.
  In an intervention, I expressed some scepticism about the inflation of court fees and the effect that that is having upon access to justice. It is a characteristic of any state that it provides a peaceful method of resolving disputes. Any reasonable state should subsidise that and ensure that there is a system available to litigate effectively. People should not be unduly excluded from that. I take on board the comments of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston); ensuring access to justice is difficult and not always possible, but we have to do the best we can, sometimes with limited resources. The power to order periodic payments by way of damages is also welcome.
  My impression is that this is a good Bill, which is welcome and extends the Government's programme of reform to an area that is in real need of reform and modernisation.
  8.39 pm
  Mr. A. J. Beith: It has been a great pleasure to hear so much favourable reference made to the report of the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, which it has been my privilege to chair. All three Front-Bench spokesmen referred to it, as did other Members. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) was kind enough to describe it as innovative. I like to feel that it was.
  We sought to do what a Special Standing Committee can do, which is to hear the witnesses who are participants in the process and might have views that they could not otherwise put to this House. I have always felt that the Special Standing Committee procedure usefully brings together the ability to call in witnesses with the process of going through the Bill in detail. This has been a slightly different process, but we sought to identify between the Lords and Commons stages those issues about which outside bodies were particularly concerned and to draw them to the attention of Members of this House for Second Reading and for the Committee. I hope that those who serve on the Standing Committee will find that helpful and will be able to pursue some of the issues further.
  As others have said, the Committee found that there was broad acceptance of the principles, purposes and objectives of the Bill. If I do not say much about that, it is because I take it as read. There was little disagreement that measures of this kind were required. Most of the disagreement was about detail, or about the implications for long-standing practices and assumptions about how the court system works.
  The first of the recommendations that I want to highlight relates to an issue that often concerns individual Members: court closures. During our

  485
  inquiry, we were aware of fears that the Bill's proposals would make it too easy for the Lord Chancellor to close courts. In practice, local magistrates courts committees have been blaming that on the Lord Chancellor for a long time, saying that the amount of money that they get locally does not allow them to maintain the number of courts or to carry out the improvements that are necessary to make individual courts suitable for modern purposes. By that, I do not mean removing attractive historic furniture but ensuring that witnesses can be treated properly, that children at a children's hearing are looked after properly in the court setting and that proper security protection is available. Those features are necessary and investment is required to bring them about.
  The combination of general stringency and the need to improve the suitability of courts for various reasons has led to a programme of closures that has gone on for many years—a couple of decades at least, and perhaps longer. No one can say that the Bill has introduced something new if it leads to the closure of courts. People are looking for some assurance that the extent to which the power is centralised will not make it easier to close courts than it is now.
  As I envisage it, the Lord Chancellor's Minister—whoever that is following the current reshuffle—will be able to be questioned in Parliament about court closures in a way that is technically not possible now because the Lord Chancellor has an appellate power; the decision, theoretically, is being taken by a different body at the moment. I have some doubt as to whether that will be enough.
  That is why the Committee laid great stress on accessibility in all its forms. As my distinguished Committee colleague, the hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston) pointed out, accessibility includes the ability to bring a case to court, including the cost factors. It includes the physical layout of courts and the ability of disabled people to get into courtrooms, as well as geographical accessibility. We would be pleased as a Committee to see that written into the Bill as one of the general duties of the Lord Chancellor, as well as a requirement that he consult local courts boards about any decisions that he makes about where courts can sit. Most of us know that that issue is very important to local communities. We need some assurance that the Bill will make sure that the views of local communities are more pertinent to the discussions about the future of local courts, and not less.
  The Committee highlighted the nature of courts administration councils, or as they are now called—following an amendment in the Lords—courts boards. Participants in the structure had fundamentally conflicting views about how they would operate, and how they should operate. Some participants thought that they ought to be executive bodies; others thought that under no circumstances should they be executive bodies. Some participants, including Ministers, hinted that they might in some respects be executive bodies and make management decisions; others thought that that certainly would not happen. There were disagreements about both the principle and the facts. That is a recipe for chaos and confusion, as we pointed out.
  486
  During her introduction some four hours ago, the Minister sought to convince us that there is a middle way—a slightly worrying term—between these two extreme positions: some ground on which one can stand, whereby local communities feel that they are actually taking the decisions, even though they do not have the executive power to do so. I remain to be convinced of that, as the Committee undoubtedly will. I am not dismissive of the Minister's good faith, but there is normally a clear distinction between a decision that one can take, and a decision that one is asked about by someone who may, or may not, take notice of one's views. There are questions about the relative influence that they attach to one's views, but this remains a fundamental disagreement that is at the heart of the Bill The House must get some clarity on it before this process is over.
  We made the point about maintaining the coterminosity of courts boards' areas with criminal justice areas. That is not because they are perfect; as my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) noted, they are very different. However, the amalgamation of magistrates courts committees that has led us to this point, and which was supposed to be for the purpose of ensuring that all of these bodies could co-operate with each other, has been such a painful process that it would seem crazy now to go further and start carrying out more amalgamations, thereby leading to courts boards' areas actually being bigger than the criminal justice areas. Indeed, that was the point of our recommendation. If the argument that the areas should be the same had the weight that the Government attach to it—that was why they forced the amalgamation of MCCs—we should now have some stability. As long as the police areas remain as they are and bodies such as the Crown Prosecution Service work to them, courts boards' areas should remain as they are. There is indeed a case for some subdivision, but the Select Committee said that we should not go beyond coterminosity, to the point where there are fewer courts boards' areas than police authority and criminal justice areas.
  We expressed some of the concerns that had been expressed to us about the independence of justices' clerks and their special relationship with magistrates—I am not sure that that has been finally resolved—and we also asked some questions about fines officers. That has been the subject of a very interesting debate, which included a contribution from the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), who sits as a recorder in south London and gave us an insight into life in the south London courts. The Committee had a genuine anxiety about how the problem of people on very low incomes would be dealt with, and whether the powers now being considered would address that category of fine defaulters. Again, that is a matter to be explored.
  We also referred to court security. We were struck by some of the evidence that we received from members of the judiciary at all levels about the anxieties that they now have, given some of the incidents that have taken place. I was struck by the extent to which they rely on the presence in court buildings of police officers who are there for other purposes. That is a bonus, if one likes, but on several occasions incidents have either been prevented or brought to an end by police officers who were present because they were appearing as witnesses in a different case, or attending another courtroom in the

  487
  same building for a different purpose. That underlines the fact that the current system of security officers does not meet all the needs of court security. We must be satisfied that it can meet those needs, and that court security officers are appropriately accountable.
  On court fees, an issue that several hon. Members have raised, we strongly recommend that the House accept the Lords amendment that requires the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the need to facilitate access to justice when setting fees. We were worried about the concept of full cost recovery, which has apparently become a part of the system by no reasoned process; rather, it has simply become the practice. Our report made reference to one witness, who said that that the concept of full cost recovery
  "fails to recognise that the courts have a public as well as a private role."
  We went on to argue that that the
  "judicial process serves important public functions by clarifying and developing the law and setting precedents for litigants to settle their cases or run their affairs, which is of wider benefit."
  Court cases that do not on the face of it appear to have an immediate wider benefit nevertheless do, especially if they prevent other cases from coming before the courts and giving rise to further expenses. Cases settle the law.
  I have often heard Ministers refer to the process of judicial review as one of the ways in which legislation is interpreted and developed, with the implication that it is desirable for some matters to come up for judicial review. If it is a public good, it may not be appropriate to expect the body of litigants generally to meet the whole cost of doing so in all cases. There is a public good element to the courts system, which should be recognised in the funding. There is mounting evidence that the court system—and full accessibility to it—cannot properly be maintained if full cost recovery is made into an inflexible principle in setting court fees.
  The final issue raised by the Select Committee that I want to address now is third-party costs. We examined it carefully and were generally sympathetic to what the Government are trying to achieve. Recent examples, some since the Government introduced their proposals, have tended to underline the need to do something about cases in which various sorts of conduct, including cheque-book journalism, lead to their destruction because a fair trial can no longer be secured. That can lead to people who are guilty not facing trial or the possibility of conviction and imprisonment, or to cases being mounted on a basis that should never have been allowed. Other sorts of misconduct can cause further expenses.
  In media cases, an important balance has to be struck between the freedom of the press and the freedom of the individual, particularly an individual's right to a fair trial. We do not believe—and the Select Committee did not believe—that that balance in any way precludes the inclusion of a third party cost power, but the balance of liberties is so important that the House should have a clearer idea of what is involved before we legislate it into existence. That is why I emphasise the Select Committee's point that the Standing Committee considering the Bill should be able to consider the draft regulations that relate to it.
  The Parliamentary Secretary was uncharacteristically confused on that point: she is not someone whom I ever associate with confusion on her brief, but there is no
  488
  doubt about it and she later corrected what she said. I hope that she has my attention on that point, even if the Leader of the House is attempting to influence her on some other matter. As I said, she was unusually and uncharacteristically confused, later correcting herself, in respect of whether the regulations and the guidance were necessary or important. We were talking specifically about the regulations, without which the powers cannot be brought into existence.
  Mr. Hogg: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise as a weakness in the Bill the fact that the regulations may prescribe conduct that shall not be deemed to be misconduct, but not what is to be defined as misconduct?
  Mr. Beith: That could be construed as a weakness. I took it to mean that, once enacted, the regulations would enable the power to be exercised, but delimit it in certain ways. I am not sure why the provision was included, because I am not sure what sorts of conduct the Government did not want to give rise to the possibility of third party costs. The right hon. and learned Gentleman asks a fair question, which should be cleared up before this part of the Bill is enacted. We cannot understand the scope of the power unless the regulations are before us.
  Finally, I want to follow up a general point that was raised by several hon. Members—and by me in an earlier intervention. If, by the end of the week, it is not the Lord Chancellor's Department that is carrying out the powers in the Bill, but a new Ministry of Justice, a highly significant reform will have taken place. I am personally quite sympathetic to it, but that will be neither adequate nor credible without other consequential reforms to our judicial and courts system. Simply designating an hon. Member of this House as the Minister of Justice and allowing him or her to discharge the powers previously accorded to the Lord Chancellor would not resolve important questions such as who should make judicial appointments. Indeed, even more questions might arise about a member of the Executive making judicial appointments if he or she was a Member of the House of Commons, rather than of the House of Lords. Some might think that such a person would be an even more political figure than the Lord Chancellor. That would be difficult to claim for the present Lord Chancellor, but the contrast could be drawn with some previous Lord Chancellors, who had little contact with the political world before taking on the post.
  It is important for the working of all aspects of the judicial system, including the Bill, that any reform is genuine and thoroughgoing. Members of the Select Committee are certainly conscious of the anxieties of members of the judiciary about the important relationship—necessarily somewhat distant—between themselves and Parliament. Some hon. Members have made suggestions about how that relationship should operate. When the Home Secretary goes to the Police Federation conference and makes a speech that is clearly designed to ingratiate him with his audience, saying that we want judges who will help the police to do their job, he might be seen to be placing a heavy emphasis on how much credibility judges should attach to police evidence as opposed to the evidence of other witnesses in a case.

  489
  Understandably, such comments cause concern among the judiciary that the relationship may become unbalanced. I counsel the Government that reforms of many aspects of the judicial system must have regard to that balance, and a quick decision about who should have what ministerial job on a Thursday afternoon is no way to resolve the major constitutional issues that my Committee has sought to consider.
  Mr. Heath: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if we are to have a Ministry of Justice—this is a hypothetical question—it is important that it derive part of its powers from the present powers not only of the Lord Chancellor but of the Home Secretary to remove his propensity to interfere in matters of justice that he is ill equipped to consider?
  Mr. Beith: I agree with my hon. Friend, although I do not wish to personalise the argument. I have criticised the Home Secretary, but there is a more general reason why powers that currently reside in the Home Office could usefully be grouped into a new Ministry of Justice, alongside many of the functions prescribed in the Bill. It is a difficult process and we have become aware of some of the anxieties felt by members of the judiciary about its implications. Indeed, we may at some stage report on aspects of it. My suspicion is that aspects of the issue would resound for some time for precisely the reason that I have given—that one cannot resolve the issues simply by announcing a list of new ministerial offices and duties. It might be unwise to claim too much for a mere reallocation of duties when major reform has much wider constitutional implications.
  8.58 pm
  Mr. David Kidney: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), I agree that the provisions of the Bill complement the provisions of other measures, including the Criminal Justice Bill, which is also passing through Parliament. I agree that it necessary to consider the two together, because that demonstrates the Government's commitment to a thoroughgoing reform of the legal system—and rightly so. There is a legitimate public interest in a system that dispenses justice to a quality that is widely respected around the world, and that must remain undiminished. However, we must also address the serious faults in the present system.
  The faults include excessive delay, inconsistent outcomes and the difficulty in some areas of addressing the legitimate needs of law-abiding users of our courts, other than those accused of crimes. The accused are, of course, innocent until proven guilty, but I have in mind witnesses, including police officers, and victims of crime, who do not always receive the consideration from the system that they are entitled to expect.
  I come to the debate as someone who, before becoming a Member of Parliament, was a solicitor for 20 years and had everyday experience of magistrates courts, county courts and Crown courts. However, I speak as a non-practising solicitor, determined to represent my constituents and my constituency, not as a
  490
  hack lawyer with faint memories of how things used to be. To that end, before this debate and before debates on the Criminal Justice Bill, I embarked on a round of meetings with magistrates, magistrates courts staff, the police, the Crown Prosecution Service, the probation service and voluntary sector groups. I did not meet anybody from Victim Support, but it gave me written briefings, which I read. For brevity, I want to address the Bill by concentrating on just two issues: first, the unified system for the management of courts; and, secondly, the collection of fines.
  I am wholly in favour of a unified system to manage all our courts. Such a system would not only manage our resources more effectively and efficiently; it would also enable us to let more people than those who are busy running the courts have a say in how the courts system should be managed.
  I look forward to courts boards that are broadly representative of their communities. I look forward to their taking the—apparently narrow—brief in the Bill, running with it and making a success of their involvement in the courts system. I want them to oversee the development of courts that are genuinely accessible to their communities. As other Members have already said, accessibility includes the physical nature of the buildings; for example, disabled members of the community must be able to get into them. Accessibility means proper facilities for prosecution and defence witnesses or the witnesses on both sides of a case. It involves allowing people privacy for consultation with their lawyers. It involves adequate security so that people are safe while they are on the premises. Those are all as much aspects of accessibility as the distance that must be travelled to reach the court.
  I look forward to the new courts boards contributing to the effective management of courts in their area so that there is genuine accessibility and so that we tackle other faults.
  David Taylor: I am listening carefully to my hon. Friend. Does he agree that many of the 42 existing magistrates courts committees will have taken exactly the line that he describes in reviewing the courts under their care and control? What will the new courts boards add to the process?
  Mr. Kidney: I shall deal directly with my hon. Friend's question in a moment when I talk about court closures, but his comments bring me to a point that I would have made later. I believe that we cannot praise magistrates courts often enough for their sterling work in the delivery of justice. The same goes for the staff who work in the magistrates courts and in the magistrates courts system. I am happy to say that.
  I was about to say that I would expect courts boards to reduce unnecessary delays in the management of courts in their area—for example, where too many cases are waiting to be heard at one court and other courts in the district are under-utilised. We can balance court use in order to reduce delays.
  That relates to court closures, so I shall now deal with my hon. Friend's point directly. I hope that, when an overview is taken of all the court assets in a district, the courts board can manage them in such a way as to avoid

  491
  unnecessary closures of magistrates courts. In Staffordshire, my area, some hit-and-miss discussions have been held between the Court Service and the magistrates courts committee to consider whether there can be shared use of magistrates courts and county courts to avoid the complete closure of courts in one system or the other. In the past, however, that process has by no means been formal, nor has it been adopted in every case. Unification of the system would give us better and more regular opportunities to do that. That is my answer to my hon. Friend's question.
  The enforcement of fines is probably a much bigger and more important issue than some Members have recognised so far. Let us reflect on the fact that the proportion of the monetary value of fines imposed that has been collected has consistently fallen in the past decade. At the same time, the option of using fines as the sentence of disposal by courts has similarly fallen, and it is very likely that the former is the cause of the latter trend.
  It is extremely important that we satisfy the public and the sentencers that where fines are the correct choice of sentence they will be collected and paid by offenders. Otherwise, sentencers will look for other sentences. We have seen a rapid rise in our prison population, which suggests that sentences of imprisonment are sometimes imposed because fines do not seem credible to the sentencers. It is essential for humanity and the correct choice of sentence that we satisfy the courts and the public that fines will be paid when they are imposed.
  Hon. Members may remember the reports in the national press last autumn about the poor performance of some courts in collecting fines. When I met the staff of my local magistrates court to discuss their performance in collecting fines, they said that there was a noticeable drop in the payment of fines on the back of that public reporting, again showing the sensitivity of everyone outside the court system to the effectiveness of collecting fines.
  When I spoke to those at my local courts in mid-Staffordshire about collecting fines, they told me that their collection rate is much better than the national average—68 per cent. compared with 58 per cent.—but they are not happy with that performance and want to do better. They already employ enforcement officers, who try to manage the outstanding case load of fine payments. They have taken measures to attract people back into engaging with them when they are not paying their fines. They have already introduced advice sessions for people who want to pay their fines but are having difficulty doing so.
  My local court staff raised issues about the exchange of information and the speed at which other agencies cooperate with them. For example, if they want to deduct money from people's benefits, they experience a four-week delay in getting a response from the Department for Work and Pensions, but at least they say that they experience good information sharing with that Department and that they get fair co-operation from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, whereas they get no co-operation from the tax authorities.
  That was why I asked my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary about the law on gaining information from other agencies for the purposes of enforcing the payment of fines. If I understood my hon.
  492
  Friend correctly, she said that she would write to me to set out the position, and I then hope to make use of that information in relation to my local magistrates courts.
  Mr. Beith: It is an odd fact, but powers in the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2001 can be used in relation to any criminal offence that has been committed or may be committed—I presume that fine defaulting may be included—to ask the Revenue for details of people's income and various other information, so long as the request is proportionate to the offence in question.
  Mr. Kidney: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that additional information. To bandy similar information back to him, he may remember that, when we amended the Child Support Act 1991, we introduced new powers on the exchange of information in respect of collecting child support payments. If the right hon. Gentleman is interested, when I receive a reply from my hon. Friend I shall pass a copy to him.
  Imaginative ways of taking payments are being pursued in mid-Staffordshire, such as payments over the telephone, credit card payments, online payments and, obviously, meeting the enforcement officer regularly. All those measures are welcome. I suspect that my local enforcement officers will appreciate the slight addition to their powers that has been discussed in the debate so far. I agree with those who says that those powers are not staggeringly new or more extensive, and my local enforcement officers are not that impressed with giving people discounts on their fines, as they see that as an additional complication to their work and they say that their computer programmes would need to be rewritten to deal with it. I would like to people to be pretty certain that, if they do not pay fines, the money will be taken from them, whether on the day of their appearance at court, through payment from their salary, through payment from their bank account, through payment from their benefits, or through payment by way of forfeiture of vehicles. Through those methods, which should be robust, firm and virtually inevitable, I would hope that, in most cases, we could dispense with sending people to prison for not paying fines when they had not received a prison sentence in the first instance, as that was not commensurate with the seriousness of the offence that they committed. At the most severe end, a person can go to prison for not paying their fine for an offence that did not carry a prison sentence as a possible punishment at the beginning. I would therefore like to see us rely less, not more, on the threat of imprisonment for not paying fines.
  With those few comments, I wish to welcome the Bill. On its own, it is a fairly modest provision. Together with other reforms currently taking place in Parliament, however, important modernisations of the judicial system are being made, which the public outside will very much welcome.
  9.11 pm
  Mr. Douglas Hogg: The hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said in his concluding remarks that this is a modest Bill, which it is. It is also a very technical Bill, and will therefore, I suspect, attract less public interest and attention than it

  493
  deserves. As someone who has sat through most of the debate, I recognise that the Bill has been given a substantive welcome by right hon. and hon. Members. It would therefore be churlish of me not to recognise that within the Bill there is material that I should welcome. I am bound to say, however, that there is also a great deal of material in the Bill that I do not welcome. As this is a Second Reading debate, I shall focus on the latter rather than on the former.
  I want to begin by analysing to a degree what this Bill is about, its nature and its consequences. Let us be clear: this Bill, once passed, will bring about, over time, a significant change to the way in which the law is administered in this country. That process of change will not be driven by Members of the House, however, as this is an enabling Bill in its substance. Any right hon. or hon. Member who has studied the Bill with care will recognise that the instrument of change will be secondary legislation—statutory instruments brought forward by the Lord Chancellor and approved, or not approved, by the House. Once we have passed the Bill, we have put in train a process over which we, the elected Members, will have little control.
  The Parliamentary Secretary, in a candid speech of great modesty, said that she could not comment on whether a Minister of Justice will be appointed. I understand that: she is not privy to the Prime Minister's views on this matter. I for one, however, would welcome the appointment of a Minister of Justice, who would take unto himself or herself many of the powers of the Lord Chancellor and the Home Secretary and who would be present in this House. One of the aspects of the Bill that I find most disagreeable and troubling is my certain knowledge that the statutory instruments will be drafted by officials answerable to the Lord Chancellor. We do not—at least, for the most part—have the ability to question the Lord Chancellor. I am perfectly prepared to accept that he had a very distinguished civil practice at the Bar, but he knows next to nothing about the criminal law, and had very little experience of the family division when in practice. Officials—I make no criticism of them—often have very little experience outside their Department. We are also, of course, giving very great powers to the Lord Chief Justice, who is, by definition, unaccountable. The mechanisms for driving forward policy change will be outside our effective control once we have approved the Bill.
  It is true that the orders will have to be approved. The House will be familiar with clause 106, which deals with order-making powers. A few of the orders will be subject to the affirmative procedure, but most of them will not. Most will be subject to the negative procedure, and I shall mention one or two of them shortly. In effect, the negative procedure provides no control whatever while the affirmative procedure, which will apply to very few of the orders made under the Bill, will provide precious little control. As the House well knows, a statutory instrument has either to be approved in its entirety or rejected in its entirety. There is no power of amendment. We cannot include new provisions in a statutory instrument. We either approve or reject the lot. That is not a proper way to drive forward substantial change, but that is what the Bill does.
  494
  I now turn from the general issues to deal with a few specific points. I recognise that there has been almost a consensus in approving the proposal for the abolition of the magistrates courts committees, but that consensus does not include me. I have had the pleasure of representing a Lincolnshire constituency since 1979 and, in that period, I have been pretty impressed by the way in which the Lincolnshire magistrates courts committee has performed its duty. On any view, there has been real local oversight and real local input. Will the position be substantially better under the new regime so elegantly advanced by the Parliamentary Secretary? I doubt it.
  The areas covered by the local justice boards will be determined by the Lord Chancellor, who is not accountable in this House. Why should I assume that he is more concerned about the local delivery of justice—a subject that has never perplexed him in the past—than the Lincolnshire magistrates courts committee? I do not make that assumption.
  I then ask myself whether I derive any comfort from the provisions for the courts boards. Who will appoint them? The Lord Chancellor, and is not that splendid? He will appoint every member of the courts boards, but he is not accountable to this House in any sense. When we consider the criteria, we ask whether members could be appointed in a different manner, and, of course, they could. The constitution of the courts boards implies that they will have two representatives of the justices serving on them, so why should the local justices not make those nominations? Why should the judges—the presiding the judge of the circuit, the Lord Chief Justice or perhaps the judges themselves—not be involved in choosing the judges that will serve? Why should the local authorities or another local mechanism not determine the choice of the local representatives? Why should that decision be left to the Lord Chancellor?
  I hope that the answers to those questions will be teased out in Committee. However, one thing is absolutely sure. The courts boards constitute a centralised and undemocratic structure. I hope that their composition will be made more democratic, and that they will be given substantially more authority and teeth. However, the proposals, as they stand, provide no compensation to me for the abolition of the Lincolnshire magistrates courts committee.
  Much reference has been made in the debate to accessibility to local courts. I agree that it is important that there should be the local delivery of justice. By that we mean a number of things. For example, we mean local courts, and there has been genuine consensus on that. I suspect that there has also been consensus that justice should be affordable. On that point, I am bound to say that I am pretty cautious about clause 92, which deals with the setting of fees. If justice is too expensive, it is not accessible. If you look carefully at clause 92, Madam Deputy Speaker, which I am sure that you have done, you will find that the fees and their scales and rates are determined exclusively by the Lord Chancellor with the consent of the Treasury. Anybody who hears the phrase "with the consent of the Treasury" should be deeply worried because its interests and our interests are not the same.
  I happen to agree with Labour Members who said that full recovery is a bad thing, although I was not unduly concerned with the full recovery of court fees when I was a Foreign Office Minister—perhaps I should

  495
  have been. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and other hon. Members said, there is a public interest in the proper administration of justice. It is a scandal to run courts on the basis of fees recovered from prospective litigants, yet the Bill provides for that. The amendment made in the other place to provide that the Lord Chancellor should have regard to access to justice does not clearly state that a policy of full recovery is wrong in principle, so I hope that the Bill will be amended in Committee to reflect that fact.
  As the Bill stands, the Lord Chancellor may do as he pleases on fees, subject to the consent of the Treasury, which is no safeguard. It is true that he will have to consult but whom, pray? The judiciary. He will not have to consult the consumer and we, the elected representatives, will be cut out of the process because only the negative procedure guards the public against the level of fees. The fees will be set by the Lord Chancellor, who may do as he pleases. The Bill is largely silent on the criteria on which the fees should be fixed, so I am deeply unhappy about the fee-making power.
  Part 7 contains rule-making powers and will give judges, lawyers, officials and the Lord Chancellor substantial powers to make rules on criminal law, family law and the civil law. Of course, Bills are always written using careful language, so the Bill says that the rules are concerned with practice and procedure. That offers a great deal of reassurance, I am sure, because anyone who knows the first thing about the law knows full well that there is a marked overlap between practice and procedure on one hand and substantive law on the other. In case hon. Members did not spot that fact, which I am sure that they did, they will realise from clauses 73 and 80 that the Lord Chancellor, no less, is enabled in terms to revoke, repeal or amend any enactment as a consequence of rules passed or to facilitate the rules.
  Let us be clear about this. The Lord Chancellor, unaccountable and unquestioned by hon. Members as he is, may change statutes passed by this House to facilitate a rule. I happen to think that that is not a good idea. The Parliamentary Secretary may take a different view and I am sure that the Whips will ensure that her view prevails. However, the provision makes nonsense of the parliamentary process, which I am sure that she will come to appreciate in time.
  We now reach the little matter of third party costs, which is covered by clause 93 and has been dealt with by several hon. Members. I for one am perfectly willing to accept that on occasion it would be right to make a substantial costs order against a third party guilty of misconduct. Perhaps the most obvious example is that of newspapers which have paid witnesses who have caused cases to be aborted. There have been a number of recent examples of that. One thing is wholly plain: if we are going down that road, we would do well to prescribe in pretty clear terms in the Bill the classes of misconduct that will attract an order of third party costs.
  Naturally, being a keen-minded chap, I asked myself what is in the Bill on those terms. The answer is nothing at all. It is not possible to tell what classes of misconduct will attract a third party costs order. So I had to ask:
  496
  how will the costs order be quantified? That cannot be found out from the Bill either. I then had to ask: what right has the third party to be heard or to be represented? But that cannot be found out because all those matters, at least to some degree, are to be prescribed by regulation. Again the Lord Chancellor will lay down the regulations and again they will not be the subject of effective parliamentary control. Indeed, so far as the regulations on misconduct are concerned, all they touch on is what is not misconduct, not what is misconduct. That is a pretty rum way of doing business.
  I am not trying to pretend that the Bill represents a series of civil liberty issues, as the Criminal Justice Bill did which we recently sent to the other place. I spoke repeatedly on that and it raised important issues of civil liberties and public rights. However, there is much in this Bill that is profoundly unattractive. At the end of the day, it is an enabling Bill. We start the process and once it has started we have lost our control over it. I find that a very undesirable state of affairs.
  So when the Committee undertakes its scrutiny of the Bill, I hope that we will make a serious attempt to achieve strong local input into the management and delivery of the criminal justice system. I hope further that the rights and obligations of the individual are defined in the Bill and not left to secondary legislation. To the extent that secondary legislation is inevitable, and I know that it always happens, I hope that there is a strong presumption in favour of the affirmative rather than the negative procedure. We should be very, very cautious about allowing Ministers or officials to change substantive law—enactments—by way of regulation.
  I am afraid that, despite the chorus of approval for much of the Bill, I remain deeply sceptical about its main purpose and nature. Left to myself, it would not get a Second Reading.
  9.28 pm
  Mr. Alan Hurst: I am obliged to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this important, if not dramatic, debate. I declare an interest as someone who plied his trade, or calling, in the magistrates courts for a number of years. In that time, I became aware of the important function that they, and those who serve in them, perform.
  Like many other hon. Members, I have had the misfortune of losing one magistrates court in my parliamentary division, and I am about to lose a second. Had I served in Parliament for longer, I would be able to claim the loss of four magistrates courts over 25 years in my district alone. Other hon. Members have mentioned accessibility, and there is a problem with that. Other than in Lincolnshire, the magistrates courts committees are not mourned because they oversaw the closure of one court after another and were unreceptive to the pleas of local people and members of local councils to keep courts open. It may not be the magistrates who serve on those committees who determine policy; I suspect that it is often the permanent employees—the chief executives. Nevertheless, the magistrates courts committees do not appear to have a sympathetic reputation in the House, and there seem to be few who will mourn their passing.

  497
  The consequence is that the Lord Chancellor, or his successor in title, will have drawn to himself many other powers that he previously appeared not to have. He will be able to close magistrates courts, rearrange magistrates courts and deal with all manner of things. As the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, essentially all the power will be in the hands of the Lord Chancellor or his successor.
  There is an opportunity there that hitherto did not exist. Previously, as has been said, when a court was destined for closure it almost entered a kind of purdah. The Lord Chancellor's representative in the House could not speak about it because the matter was going to the appellate court, the local magistrates courts committee would not speak about it in terms that led one to believe that it was open to reason, and hon. Members on both sides of the House would feel frustrated in any endeavour to advance the interests of their local communities.
  That excuse will now be gone. The power to decide whether courts stay open or close will be entirely in the hands of the Lord Chancellor or his representatives. Therefore, we will be able to make representations on closure directly to the Minister on the Floor of this Chamber.
  We have had the pernicious system whereby the magistrates courts committee announce a proposed closure, and that may go to appeal. Meanwhile the court will wither on the vine because the magistrates courts committee will often redirect business away from it. Then the Member of Parliament will be told that no one is using that court, but the reason why no one is using it is that the magistrates courts committee, during the period of appeal, has ensured that no one will use it.
  Another aspect of accessibility on which I should like to comment concerns rearranging the court's business. With the magistrates courts committees and the local courts, there is a tendency to distribute business as it fits in with their scheme of things—trials in this town, youth courts in that town, early guilty pleas in this town—irrespective of where the defendants, witnesses, probation officers, solicitors or anybody else might be.
  Because the county of Essex, with which I have some familiarity, is convenient for the Crown Prosecution Service, all cases for committal to the Crown court go either from the Basildon court or the Chelmsford court. Irrespective of where the case originates, they go from those courts at the convenience of the CPS, so everybody else involved has to travel to those courts for that purpose, irrespective of other cases.
  David Taylor: That raises the further point of the location of the judicial hearing being effectively detached from the scene of the crime. If there is not a link between the two, and so no potential for media coverage, the constraints that result from media coverage will not be present in the judicial system. Is that not regrettable?
  Mr. Hurst: My hon. Friend is right. It goes further than that, because one of the gems of the lay magistracy is their local knowledge, and the further one separates
  498
  the scene of the crime, the charging of the offence and the witnesses from the magistrates who know that area, the weaker becomes the case for local involvement.
  The situation is seen more acutely with bank holiday and Saturday courts. Again, the powers that be deem that there will be only one or two for the whole county, so again, people involved in the system have to travel long distances, with no regard for their convenience, but only for the convenience of those employed by the system. The Lord Chancellor therefore has a marvellous opportunity, if he uses his discretion rightly, to make the Court Service serve the people who are involved in it, rather than merely serving the convenience of administrators. We need to be a bit careful about that. It is absolutely right, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) said, to have proper witness rooms to separate witnesses from defendants and to have creches and every other facility that modern man and woman know of. However, if one is disabled and has to travel 30 miles to get to those facilities, one's degree of access is not as high as it was when there was a much simpler building with far less grand facilities.
  The reason why security is a greater problem than it was formerly is that police officers are not automatically in court. When I prosecuted for the county, I would have a grizzled police sergeant sitting next to me in court—first, to make certain that I did not make a hash of the case and, secondly, so that he was on hand to deal with any eventuality. In the cells below the courthouse, there would be police officers who were there as the guardians and jailers of those who were to appear in court, and so that in the event of a problem they would be on hand to deal with it straight away. Traditionally, courts were built next to police stations and there would be a tunnel between them. Security was not the problem that it has become in the more hygienic times in which we now live. If a police presence could be restored to courts, the over-neurosis about security might fade away.
  9.36 pm
  Mr. Nick Hawkins: The debate has been an example of Parkinson's law in parliamentary terms, in that speeches have expanded to fill the time available. One or two have gone into quite a lot of detail, but that is no bad thing.
  As the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper) said, the House overlooks the smooth running of the courts at its peril. She said that she wants the courts to be in touch with the communities that they serve; Conservative Members would agree with that. There followed a somewhat mistaken intervention by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). If I may respectfully say so, the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) repeated the erroneous view that they share. They both correctly said that they wanted to keep courts in their constituencies open, and the hon. Member for Thurrock expressed his pleasure that the Minister has overruled the original decision by the magistrates courts committee to shut the court in Grays in Thurrock.
  Both hon. Gentlemen are mistaken, however, in thinking that the object of their scorn should be the magistrates courts committees. I point out to the hon.

  499
  Member for Braintree, and hope that he will pass it on to the hon. Member for Thurrock, that every magistrates courts committee in the country has been so boxed in by the Government's guidance—I am not making a politically partisan point; this has been true under Governments of both parties—that they have had little choice but to decide to close courts. What is wrong is the guidance.
  If the hon. Member for Braintree really believes that the situation will get better as a result of the Bill making the process ever more centralised and giving ever more power to the Lord Chancellor, I fear that he is sadly mistaken. The problems that he describes—the centralisation of decisions to suit the convenience of the Crown Prosecution Service and the interests of the administrators, the bureaucrats and the system, not those of our constituents—will continue to an even greater extent. I echo his complaints, but he and his hon. Friend were firing at the wrong target.
  More than 100 courts have closed since the Government came to power in 1997. The situation has been getting worse. The hon. Member for Braintree is wrong to say that we have been unable to raise these issues in the House. My right hon. and hon. Friends have done so for years at every Lord Chancellor's Department and Solicitor-General's Question Time. The situation has got no better because the Government have not been prepared to accept that what is wrong is he guidance given to magistrates courts committee. We fear that this Bill—this further centralisation—will make matters worse.
  In opening the debate, the Parliamentary Secretary set out her view of the new executive agency structure. Conservative Members believe that it contains great dangers, and could be a charter for an ever-expanding bureaucracy. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, we are worried about increased centralisation. The Government's hallmarks are more tax, waste, central control and ever-expanding public sector jobs. I respectfully agree with the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), who made a sensible intervention on the Parliamentary Secretary and to whose wise words we should listen often. She said that she was not in favour of increasing the number of agencies. That is the voice of reason, from a senior Labour Back Bencher with great experience of the expansion of bureaucracies.
  In response to an intervention by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the Parliamentary Secretary conceded that the new courts boards will not necessarily have the power to do anything except express a view; they have no executive power. Is not there a danger that they will simply be talking shops? The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), who chairs the new Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, pointed out that, as many witnesses have stated, boards are neither one thing nor the other.
  The Parliamentary Secretary said that the Bill provides for new arrangements for magistrates to move benches if they move house, and for the Judicial Studies Board to have a greater role in training. Conservative Members welcome those provisions. As my hon. Friend
  500
  the Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) said, parts of the Bill are welcome, but we are worried about others, especially bureaucracy.
  The Parliamentary Secretary who opened the debate said that she expected Government amendments on fines to be tabled in Committee. We shall obviously consider them when we see them, but I hope that both Parliamentary Secretaries will listen to the wise words of my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), with all his experience as a stipendiary magistrate and deputy district judge. Many Labour Back Benchers expressed anxiety about the way in which the operation of fines undermines faith in our justice system.
  The Parliamentary Secretary also said that she expected Government amendments to be tabled on contracting out. I hope that her fellow Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), will confirm in her winding-up speech that we shall see the Government amendments as soon as possible, given that we expect the Committee stage to begin shortly.
  David Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman hope that the Government will learn from the private finance initiative disaster of the Libra computer system? That showed the awful consequences of allowing the private sector to be uncontrolled, and to deliver software in a loose framework.
  Mr. Hawkins: I hope that lessons will be learned from a history of problems that have arisen when contracts are not sufficiently tightly specified. That applies not only to the justice system but across government. Often, specifications are not drawn tightly enough and the result is a shambles. The hon. Gentleman, from his distinguished experience as a magistrate, has contributed sensibly to many of our debates. I look forward to his comments in the Standing Committee, if he serves on it.
  The Parliamentary Secretary who opened the debate rightly commented on part 4, which relates to court security. Again, Conservative Members accept that it includes some sensible provisions. I agree with the remarks of the hon. Member for Braintree about the police. I too remember when police sergeants sat in court next to the prosecutors and defenders. Perhaps more of a police presence would mean that we did not need some of these provisions.
  The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, who chairs the Select Committee, made a point, which many Labour Members also picked up, about newspapers wasting a huge amount of taxpayers' money by causing trials to be aborted. The hon. Member for Ealing, Acton and Shepherd's Bush (Mr. Soley) knows that throughout my time in Parliament, I have supported his efforts to bring newspapers to account. He pressed the Parliamentary Secretary on the need for the draft regulations to be seen before the Committee stage, and I agree with that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Stone, leading for the Opposition, rightly praised the work that has been done on the Bill in the other place, particularly by our noble Friend, Baroness Anelay of St. Johns and her colleagues. He said that we hoped that the Government would continue to accept the amendments that were

  501
  passed in another place, and I hope to hear a clear reassurance from the Minister that the Government will not seek to unwind the very sensible improvements that were made to the Bill there.
  My hon. Friend also praised the new Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department and its report. He pointed out that the Committee had concerns about the accessibility of the courts, about justices' clerks becoming civil servants, about fine enforcement and about the problem in the London area—referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking—of £92 million worth of fines having been imposed, but only £41 million having been collected. Those are matters to which we shall undoubtedly return in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas) intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Stone about the full recovery of costs as a basis for the whole system. My hon. Friend rightly pointed out that we hope that judicial salaries will continue to be kept out of the costs recovery system. A valuable amendment on that matter was passed in another place. My hon. Friend also raised the issue of fine enforcement and the ability to pay, pointing out that access to the courts is a constitutional right that should not be barred by excessive zeal in trying to recover the whole cost of the civil justice system.
  My hon. Friend also referred to the amendments proposed by the Magistrates Association, which were discussed in another place, and the issue of coterminosity between police areas and the 42 new court board areas. I was reminded that 42 was supposed to be the answer to the question of life, the universe and everything. It might not be that, but it is certainly useful to have had those amendments passed in another place.
  The undermining of local justice and the concerns about court closures, to which I have already referred, were also dealt with by my hon. Friend. We certainly need to keep the amendments to clause 30 that were passed in the other place. My hon. Friend also referred to the issue of high sheriffs and under-sheriffs, and the problem of the loss of emoluments for under-sheriffs and the indemnity of under-sheriffs between Royal Assent and the time when the new arrangements come into force. We shall return to that matter in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) made a speech that, rather uncharacteristically, tended to undermine the spirit of co-operation that existed between the parties in another place. He rather comprehensively misunderstood and misrepresented the speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Stone. He also misrepresented the Conservatives' position on the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002. I know a little bit about that, because I was one of the shadow Ministers who took that Bill through Committee. The hon. Gentleman said that the Conservatives had opposed the Bill. That was not the case; we supported large parts of it, and improved it by raising some points of detail. The Government's own Minister accepted the spirit of some of the things that we were trying to do to improve that legislation, as I hope the Government will do with this Bill.
  502
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) referred to the rumours—which we have all heard—that a Ministry of Justice might be created within a week or so, and agreed with the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed about the need for consultation before major changes in the constitutional arrangements relating to the role of the Lord Chancellor came into force. The hon. Gentleman pointed out that there had been great cause for concern when the Bill was first published, but that it had been much improved in another place. He was quite right, however, to say that we did not want any backsliding on the improvements that had been made.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome also referred to the fact that the process of justice is becoming more and more remote in this country. He took an intervention from the hon. Member for Clwyd, West, who offered a counsel of despair by saying that we could not have a court in every market town in every part of the country. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome—and the Conservatives—pointed out that that is exactly what we used to have, and, indeed, had successfully for hundreds of years. We hope that one day, we might reverse some of the court closures and get back to a system that provides local justice.
  The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome agreed with an intervention from the hon. Member for North-West Leicestershire (David Taylor), who rightly pointed out the lack of deterrence involved when local newspapers decline to travel to faraway courts—a problem arising from the local court closures. I agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The how Member for Somerton and Frome queried what local courts boards would actually do, and raised the important issue of the different sizes of police areas.
  He mentioned third-party costs, the huge disquiet about police officers being paid by newspapers, and the bland assurances by the Press Complaints Commission, which he said—and I agree with him—were not acceptable. As he observed, a robust line will be needed in Committee.
  The hon. and learned Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), the former Solicitor-General, rightly praised the work of Sir Robin Auld. He referred to the work of the new Lord Chancellor's Department Select Committee, on which he sits, and the conflicting evidence given to the Committee about the new courts boards. He also spoke of improvements in the enforcement of fines.
  In a powerful speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Woking described his experience of the fines issue. I hope that Ministers will think carefully about his important description of the situation at the sharp end. The hon. Member for Clwyd, West praised my hon. Friend's speech, and described the fines system as a travesty and a scandal. The right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed made another powerful speech about what has happened in the Lord Chancellor's Department Select Committee, and further powerful speeches were made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney).

  503
  The Bill has already been massively improved in another place. We hope that the Government will accept the improvements that have been made, and we look forward to dealing during the Committee stage with the ways in which it is still defective.
  9.51 pm
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Ms Rosie Winterton): This has been an interesting and wide-ranging debate reflecting an almost dangerous amount of expertise, represented not just by members of the legal profession but by members of the Select Committee. A number of points were made and I shall deal with as many as possible, but I think most Members agree that much of what has been raised will be dealt with in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford), my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dudley, North (Ross Cranston), and my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd, West (Gareth Thomas), for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) and for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) acknowledged that the Bill would ensure the existence of a modern and efficient court system, free from unnecessary and avoidable delay and in touch with the communities that courts serve. I was pleased that the hon. Members for Stone (Mr. Cash) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) recognised that this was an important Bill that had been subject to many improvements in the other place.
  I was somewhat disappointed that the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins) rather departed from that consensus. When it comes to court closures, he cannot have it both ways. He complains that the current system is leading to many closures, and then he suddenly wants to keep the current system. I should point out that here were seven court closures last year and 21 in 1996, under the last Administration. This year there have been eight appeals, four of which were accepted and four rejected. Between 1993 and 1996 there were 34, all of which were rejected.
  Many Members mentioned accessibility. The Government recognise that decisions on the location of courthouses are very important to local communities, and court boards will not simply be consulted about proposed closures. The issue has been raised by the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and by the Select Committee. I can assure them that the boards will be involved in the development of the estate strategy.
  David Taylor: Given my hon. Friend's recognition of the importance of accessibility, would it not be a good idea to accept an amendment to clause 1 incorporating a requirement for accessibility in the general duties of the Lord Chancellor?
  Ms Winterton: That is in clause 30, which my hon. Friend will see is quite robust in ensuring that the principle of accessibility is included in the Bill.
  The courts boards will be consulted about any court closures, and will also be involved in the development of the estate's strategy for their area, covering magistrates and Crown and county courts. Clause 5 provides that their role will be to scrutinise draft and final business plans. Those plans will set out how the best use will be
  504
  made of the area's resources, including court buildings. I hope that that gives some reassurance to hon. Members who have been worried about that issue.
  There was also discussion about local boards. Changes have been made to the Bill in response to concerns raised in the other place. The Lord Chancellor will now be under an obligation to give due consideration to the views of boards about the administration of the courts in their area. He will be accountable to Parliament for ensuring that the boards are properly involved in the work of the agency. It will be important to have proper arrangements in place to ensure that such co-operation takes place.
  Mr. Cash: I have waited until this moment to ask the Minister whether the amendments that were passed in the House of Lords will be accepted by the Government and will not be reversed in this House.
  Ms Winterton: Certainly, the amendment on accessibility will remain in the Bill. The Government have accepted it.
  Mr. Cash: I asked about all the amendments.
  Ms Winterton: There will be further discussions in Committee about the various amendments that have been made. I assure the hon. Gentleman that clause 30(2) will remain.
  Many hon. Members referred to fees. There has to be a proper system for allowing access to justice with regard to fees. At the same time, we must accept that it is right that, for example, insurance companies that argue about liability for motor accidents should pay, and that there should be a proper remissions policy for those that cannot.
  Mr. Malins: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Winterton: No, I shall not give way, because I want to finish. I am slightly worried about the hon. Gentleman's reputation in the east end after some of the comments he made about fines. I should like to assure hon. Members that we are considering how to make it easier for the courts to impose deductions from the earnings or benefits of those who have defaulted on fines, and how to increase information flows from the Inland Revenue and the Benefits Agency.
  Mr. Malins rose—
  Ms Winterton: I hope that that will answer some of the points that were raised, and I now want to wind up my speech.
  The Courts Bill contains important reforms that will encourage consistency and reduce delay across the criminal justice system. It will also ensure that our courts system gives a better service to victims, witnesses and court users.
  Mr. Malins: Will the Minister give way?
  Ms Winterton: No, I will not give way.

  505
  The Bill puts local accountability at the heart of the new system, while maintaining quality of service in every area through national standards. It has been fully debated in the other place, and extensive discussions have taken place with those involved in the system and with the wider public. The Government have listened to the concerns raised during those debates, and have responded properly and positively to them.
  The Courts Bill will play an essential part in improving the public's perception of the courts, and will provide the right framework to support the invaluable work of the lay magistracy system. It is a vital part of the Government's programme of delivering justice for all, and I commend it to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time.

  COURTS BILL [LORDS] (PROGRAMME)
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002],
  That the following provisions shall apply to the Courts Bill [Lords]—
  Committal
  1. The Bill shall be committed to a Standing Committee.
  Standing Committee
  2. Proceedings in the Standing Committee shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion on 10th July 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 five and a half hours after their commencement.
  5. Proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on consideration.
  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 Lords Amendments or on any further message from the Lords) may be programmed.—[Mr. Ainger.]
  The House divided: Ayes 291, Noes 82.

  Division No. 220]

  [10:00 pm

  AYES

  Ainger, Nick

  Berry, Roger

  Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

  Betts, Clive

  Allen, Graham

  Blackman, Liz

  Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

  Bradley, rh Keith (Withington)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Austin, John

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Baird, Vera

  Bryant, Chris

  Barnes, Harry

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Barron, rh Kevin

  Burden, Richard

  Battle, John

  Burgon, Colin

  Beckett, rh Margaret

  Burnham, Andy

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Caborn, rh Richard

  Beith, rh A. J.

  Cairns, David

  Benn, Hilary

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Benton, Joe (Bootle)

  Caplin, Ivor

  506

  Carmichael, Alistair

  Healey, John

  Caton, Martin

  Heath, David

  Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Challen, Colin

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Chaytor, David

  Heppell, John

  Chidgey, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clapham, Michael

  Hill, Keith (Streatham)

  Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

  Hinchliffe, David

  Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

  Hodge, Margaret

  Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

  Hoon, rh Geoffrey

  Clelland, David

  Hope, Phil (Corby)

  Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

  Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Coleman, Iain

  Howells, Dr. Kim

  Colman, Tony

  Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cox, Tom (Tooting)

  Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

  Cranston, Ross

  Iddon, Dr. Brian

  Crausby, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Cruddas, Jon

  Ingram, rh Adam

  Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

  Irranca-Davies, Huw

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

  Jamieson, David

  Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

  David, Wayne

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

  Denham, rh John

  Kaufman, rh Gerald

  Dhanda Parmjit

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keen, Alan (Feltham)

  Dobson, rh Frank

  Kemp, Fraser

  Donohoe, Brian H.

  Khabra, Piara S.

  Doran, Frank

  Kidney, David

  Drew, David (Stroud)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  King, Andy (Rugby)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kirkwood, Sir Archy

  Efford, Clive

  Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Kumar, Dr. Ashok

  Etherington, Bill

  Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

  Farrelly, Paul

  Lammy, David

  Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Fisher Mark

  Lazarowicz, Mark

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Lepper, David

  Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Follett, Barbara

  Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

  Foster, rh Derek

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Foster, Michael (Worcester)

  Linton, Martin

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Love, Andrew

  Francis, Dr. Hywel

  Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

  Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gardiner, Barry

  McCabe, Stephen

  Gerrard, Neil

  McCafferty, Chris

  Gibson, Dr. Ian

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Gilroy, Linda

  MacDonald, Calum

  Goggins, Paul

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  McIsaac, Shona

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  McKechin, Ann

  Grogan, John

  McKenna, Rosemary

  Hain, rh Peter

  McNamara, Kevin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  McNulty, Tony

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  McWalter, Tony

  Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

  McWilliam, John

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Mahmood, Khalid

  Hanson, David

  Mallaber, Judy

  Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

  Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

  Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

  Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  507

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury & Atcham)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

  Marshall, David (Glasgow Shettleston)

  Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Meacher, rh Michael

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Merron, Gillian

  Southworth, Helen

  Miliband, David

  Spellar, rh John

  Miller, Andrew

  Squire, Rachel

  Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

  Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

  Moffatt, Laura

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mole, Chris

  Stevenson, George

  Moonie, Dr. Lewis

  Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

  Morley, Elliot

  Mountford, Kali

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Mullin, Chris

  Stoate, Dr. Howard

  Munn, Ms Meg

  Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Stringer, Graham

  Naysmith, Dr. Doug

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Tarni, Mark (Alyn)

  O'Hara, Edward

  Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

  Olner, Bill

  Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Taylor, David (NW Leis)

  Organ, Diana

  Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

  Owen, Albert

  Timms, Stephen

  Pearson, Ian

  Tipping, Paddy

  Perham, Linda

  Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

  Picking, Anne

  Touhig, Don (IsIwyn)

  Pike, Peter (Burnley)

  Trickett, Jon

  Pollard, Kerry

  Truswell, Paul

  Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Pope Greg, (Hyndburn)

  Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

  Pound, Stephen

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Prescott, rh John

  Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

  Primarolo, rh Dawn

  Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Vis, Dr. Rudi

  Purchase, Ken

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Purnell, James

  Ward, Claire

  Quin, rh Joyce

  Wareing, Robert N.

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Watts, David

  Rammell, Bill

  White, Brian

  Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

  Whitehead, Dr. Alan

  Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

  Williams, Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Wilson, Brian

  Rooney, Terry

  Winnick, David

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Ruane, Chris

  Ruddock, Joan

  Wood, Mike (Batley)

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

  Worthington, Tony

  Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

  Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

  Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

  Salter, Martin

  Sanders, Adrian

  Wright, David (Telford)

  Sarwar, Mohammad

  Wyatt, Derek

  Sawford, Phil

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Sheridan, Jim

  Charlotte Atkins and

  Simon, Siôn (B'ham Erdington)

  Dan Norris

  NOES

  Amess, David

  Burt, Alistair

  Baldry, Tony

  Butterfill, John

  Barker, Gregory

  Cameron, David

  Bellingham, Henry

  Cash, William

  Boswell, Tim

  Chope, Christopher

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

  Brady, Graham

  Brazier, Julian

  Djanogly, Jonathan

  Burns, Simon

  Dodds, Nigel

  508

  Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

  Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

  Evans, Nigel

  Fallon, Michael

  Murrison, Dr. Andrew

  Forth, rh Eric

  Norman, Archie

  Francois, Mark

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Page, Richard

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Paterson, Owen

  Green, Damian (Ashford)

  Pickles, Eric

  Gummer, rh John

  Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

  Hammond, Philip

  Hawkins, Nick

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Hendry, Charles

  Selous, Andrew

  Hermon, Lady

  Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

  Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

  Simmonds, Mark

  Hogg, rh Douglas

  Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

  Howard, rh Michael

  Soames, Nicholas

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

  Hunter, Andrew

  Spring, Richard

  Key, Robert (Salisbury)

  Stanley, rh Sir John

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Taylor, Ian (Esher)

  Knight rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Leigh, Edward

  Tredinnick, David

  Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

  Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

  Lidington, David

  Viggers, Peter

  Lilley, rh Peter

  Waterson, Nigel

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Watkinson, Angela

  Loughton Tim

  Whittingdale, John

  Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

  Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

  Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

  Mackay, rh Andrew

  Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Young, rh Sir George

  Malins, Humfrey

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Maude, rh Francis

  Hugh Robertson and

  Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

  Mr. Laurence Robertson

  Question accordingly agreed to.

  COURTS BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been singnified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1) (a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—
  (a) any expenses of the Lord Chancellor under that Act, and
  (b) any increase attributable to that Act in the sums payable under any other Act out of money so provided.—[Mr. Caplin.]
  Queston agreed to.

  COURTS BILL [LORDS] [WATS AND MENAS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1) (a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Courts Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorize—
  (a) provision amending section 329AA of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988, and
  (b) the payment of sums in the Consolidated Fund.—[Dan Norris.]
  Question agreed to.

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

  CONSUMER PROTECTION
  That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Part 8 Domestic Infringements) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
  Question agreed to.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  COMPETITION
  That the draft Enterprise Act 2002 (Supply of Services) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 12th May, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
  Question agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I shall put together motions Nos. 7 to 9.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  CONTRACTING OUT
  That the draft Contracting Out (Administration of the Teachers' Pensions Scheme) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 28th April, be approved.

  CRIMINAL LAW
  That the draft Referral Orders (Amendment of Referral Conditions) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 1st May, be approved.—[Dan Norris.]
  Question agreed to.

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Ordered,
  That the Prosecution of Offences (Youth Courts Time Limits) (Revocation and Transitional Provision) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 917), be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Dan Norris.]

Crime Prevention (Small Businesses)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Dan Norris.]
10.16 pm
Mr. Nigel Evans: I was pleased to secure this debate to raise the problem of crime that is blighting small businesses throughout the country. I congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), who secured a debate in a similar vein on 14 May. I want to cover the small retail sector as opposed to larger stores. They, too, suffer from retail crime, but I want to concentrate on the smaller end of the market this evening.
I declare an interest as the owner of a retail business, which my sister now runs—and makes a profit—now that I have gone. I do not apologise for being passionate about my beliefs in small businesses and the small retail sector; involvement in such businesses has been an important part of my life. The fact remains that being a small retailer these days is far more dangerous than in the 1930s, when my grandfather started his store. We have seen considerable changes since, with many smaller enterprises closing down. There used to be a small corner shop on virtually every street—the "Open All Hours" of Ronnie Barker fame. Sadly, many of those have disappeared.
The problems that such businesses face have also increased. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East told the House on 14 May, the retail industry employs 2.7 million people, with just fewer than half working in the smaller end of the business—not the Asdas, Tescos, Sainsburys and Safeways, but the smaller retail outlets. They employ 1.1 million people and produce more than 4 per cent. of the UK's turnover.
Small retail business is part of the fabric of what was once described as a nation of shopkeepers. Many smaller businesses tend to be one-man bands or perhaps a husband and wife run the stores, and many work on, the margins. If they employ anyone, it will be disproportionately female staff, who often work all hours just to make a living. It is mainly a cash trade, not credit cards or cheques, and the businesses are vulnerable.
I should like to do my Huw Edwards impersonation by reading one or two articles from Convenience Store, which has run on a weekly basis some of the problems that retailers face up and down the country. It states:
"A store manager in Cambridgeshire was knocked unconscious by robbers during an early morning raid. The raiders struck at the Budgens store, in Cambridge after climbing in through an upstairs window. After attacking the store manager the robbers escaped through a rear fire door with £5,745 in cash … The … manager was found by staff sprawled on the floor with a bruise on his head and a bloody nose. He was taken to a local hospital."
Another article says:
"A convenience store worker was tortured by vicious raiders during a robbery in Greater Manchester",
when a stun gun was used against him.
A further example says:
"A store assistant had a screwdriver held to her throat during a robbery on a convenience store in Essex. Two robbers entered the Alldays store in Benfleet via the back door and demanded that the female member of staff hand over cash and the store's CCTV tape … A convenience store worker was threatened with a gun by two women during a robbery in East Sussex."

511
I shall not read them all, because there are too many, but such stories appear every week in Convenience Store. For example, it says:
"A store assistant has quit her job after being confronted by a pair of armed robbers in an Essex c-store … A 52-year-old convenience store owner was killed and another retailer left seriously injured after being attacked with a machete while working in their stores in Birmingham. Mother of four Parminda Poonia was viciously attacked in the Costcutter store she ran with her husband in Birchfield Road, Aston, at noon on September 16. Parminda, who leaves four sons, suffered four blows to the head during the attack and died in Birmingham's Queen Elizabeth Hospital".
Those are the sort of crimes that are now being committed in stores around the country. We could have a whole other debate on shoplifting, but retailers have to face violent crime every clay. I pay tribute to Convenience Store magazine, which has published "Zero Tolerance" to give advice and guidance to retail owners about the actions that they should take to try to protect themselves. We should have zero tolerance for this crime. Some 20,000 attacks took place in 2001—an increase of 40 per cent. I understand that new figures from the British Retail Consortium will reinforce that trend. In total, thefts and robberies have hit a new record level, and the cost to the nation of retail crime is topping £2.4 billion.
For smaller businesses, with few resources, crime can threaten their very viability and the employment that they provide. Business crime is sometimes seen as a victimless crime, but it cannot be victimless when violence is used against the employers or employees. The Alldays chief executive, in charge of 600 stores, stated that it is difficult to get staff in areas in which a store has been attacked.
People also tend to think that goods are insured, so there is no problem. However, in many cases, the goods are not insured. The premiums for some of the smaller stores are so high, especially to cover money, cigarettes, lop-up cards for phones and lottery terminals, that they cannot afford the insurance. It has also been estimated that when an attack takes place in a store, up to 40 per cent. of the staff have to take time off afterwards to recover in hospital or just to get over the trauma.
Some of the smaller stores are working at the margins. The bigger stores can make 5 or even 7 per cent. profit on turnover, but some of the smaller stores are not making the money, even though they may have a large turnover.
Barbara Follett: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the smaller stores are suffering from the success of some of the 250 retail crime partnerships that have been set up by the British Retail Consortium? Those partnerships benefit the bigger stores but the smaller convenience stores are outside the system, so they are even more isolated. The people who are being excluded from the bigger stores by the retail crime partnerships are now attacking the convenience stores, so they are even more at risk than they were before.
Mr. Evans: I agree with the hon. Lady. Many of the smaller businesses do not know anything about the crime partnerships and they feel as if they are on their own. Only a small percentage of businesses in the
512
Ribble valley, for example, have anything to do with the crime partnership. We need to look again at how we can involve smaller businesses in crime partnerships. Small businesses that are only one or two-man operations may not be able to send someone to meetings, because they do not employ any cover. We must be alert to the realities of what we can do for those smaller businesses.
Smaller businesses may not be able to afford security measures. They may have a high turnover, but they make only 5 per cent. on lottery tickets and less on some of the phone cards.
Even if a business has a respectable turnover, it might make only a small profit. Such businesses do not have the money to invest in the security measures installed in some of the larger stores.
The National Federation of Retail Newsagents carried out a survey in my area, which is seen as fairly affluent, and in Blackburn. It painted a picture of a rising trend in the fear of crime. People are afraid. The postmaster in Chatburn, one of my local villages, told me that there is a fear factor; even there, people fear attack. He lives above the shop and told me how, in the middle of the night, youths smashed a window, broke in and stole the automatic cash machine. The raid was obviously well planned, but the people living above the shop were afraid of what might have happened to them if they had gone downstairs and caught those thieves. When people read all those articles in Convenience Store, they are afraid.
Barbara Follett: There is a rural area in my constituency, and I have noticed that fear of crime is a factor in the closure of rural post offices. We all know how necessary rural post offices are, so, in areas where there are no neighbourhood wardens and no possibility of a crime partnership, I beg the Minister to look into ways of safeguarding what may be the only store in a village.
Mr. Evans: I agree with the hon. Lady. When violence and intimidation are used against members of staff, they ask why they should put up with it. Owners of businesses decide that they cannot put up with it either, so they shut up shop.
I want to turn to what the Government can do to help smaller businesses. We need a police presence and appropriate sentencing. Retail crime should be taken very seriously indeed. The attitude should not be, "Oh well, it's only retail crime—they can afford it." Such crime has an immense impact, especially in rural areas or in areas where there may be only one store. Sentences must be seen to be a deterrent. When financial penalties are imposed, more must be done to recover them. There are financial penalties in 70 per cent. of cases, but the money is actually paid in only 59 per cent. of them, which causes great despondency in the retail trade.
Anyone who attacks staff working in a retail business should be dealt with as seriously as someone who attacks a nurse in an accident and emergency department or anyone else doing public service. When a person is attacked while they are working with the public, the penalty should be much more severe.
Much crime is drug-related. Apparently, goods worth between £20,000 and £40,000 must be stolen each year to feed one person's drug dependency. We must do more

513
to ensure that such people are caught and given rehabilitation rather than continuing to steal from stores to feed their drugs habit. We need a crackdown on such drug users.
The Government have given a £15 million grant over three years for closed circuit television in deprived areas. However, we must also consider small businesses in other areas, whose owners cannot afford to install CCTV themselves. I hope that the Government can consider them. Such businesses may not be in deprived areas but they cannot afford such measures. Even shutters for a normal store cost about £2,000, which is a lot of money for many people. Will the Minister consider that point, too?
The NFRN survey reported that the lower a store's turnover, the less likely it was to invest in security measures. CCTV alone is not the answer. The hon. Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) referred to policing. The police need to be far more visible around small businesses. If people see police officers on the beat, they feel much more secure. As some small businesses are open until 9, 10 or 11 o'clock at night, we need policing at those times. Will the Minister consider how local crime partnerships can be extended to include small businesses so that at least they have that cloak of security and feel that they are not alone?
The Minister should treat the problems of violence, vandalism and thieving in shops and stores throughout the country seriously and urgently. Ordinary, decent and hard-working retailers and their staff are getting battered and injured daily. That has got worse over the years, and it is still getting worse. In some areas, it has reached crisis point, and I want to know when the Government will recognise the problem and do something concrete about it that will give smaller, independent retailers a ring of security and safety.
Barbara Follett: Like many other MPs, I have a small shop. It is where I operate from, and I have had to invest in its shutters and to put in CCTV and other security measures. I would like the Minister to press local police forces to ensure that antisocial behaviour orders are brought into force, because I find it difficult to get such orders put in place in my constituency. We have streamlined them, but there is still resistance among officers, and I should like some work to be done on that. My life and that of my caseworker are being made a misery at the moment by a youngish man of between 11 and 13 ringing the doorbell, although I think that an ASBO is about to be imposed. However, that is a minor nuisance compared with what other shopkeepers have to suffer. We have the instruments; we just need to ensure that they are used.
Mr. Evans: I agree, and if a small group of young people persistently behave abusively, it can be hell for people who run retail stores because they are worried about their security and frightened that those people will come into their shops, and we know how they operate.
514
I hope that the Minister will give some positive news tonight and that, at the end of the day, Convenience Store magazine, which has a run a very successful campaign, will be able to print fewer articles about genuine, hard-working people being battered, injured and, indeed, killed. Perhaps we can then give three cheers to the Minister for listening and proposing action.
10.31 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) on securing this Adjournment debate and on raising these important issues. I fully understand the detrimental effect that crime against business has throughout the community and the damaging effect that crime, particularly violent crime, can have on people's lives, their businesses and their families. That is why the Government are determined to address the problems in the most effective way possible: in partnership with those businesses and other stakeholders, such as the police.
In December 2002, we launched a consultation exercise in which we sought the views of business and other interested organisations on how we can work together more effectively to tackle crime. The consultation period has now ended and the responses are being analysed. As part of the consultation process, the Home Office and the Small Business Service jointly organised a seminar for small businesses and obtained the views of those present in a series of workshops. I am very grateful to all those who responded so fully to the consultation, and their views will be key to helping us to develop a clear strategy for better working with those in business to reduce business-related crime.
The hon. Gentleman has particular knowledge of, and interest in, the problems that face small retailers. I am sure that he will have welcomed the scheme, announced by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in which £15 million was allocated to improve security for small retailers in deprived areas throughout England and Wales. Funding has been provided so that security improvements can be made to shops and shopping parades to help to tackle crime and disorder problems on their doorstep. We helped 7,500 shops in the first two years, and with the £6 million that we still have to allocate this financial year we hope to help a further 5,000 shops.
Some businesses in the hon. Gentleman's constituency have benefited from the scheme. For example, last year, the scheme paid for the installation of an external CCTV camera outside a late-opening shop in the Longridge area. That is the kind of small scheme that we can implement through those programmes. Although I accept that the programmes are targeted on businesses in deprived areas, the problems go wider than that, as the hon. Gentleman said, but I ask him to accept that there are particular pressures on businesses in deprived areas, where those businesses are badly needed by the community yet the crime that they suffer effectively drives them out and prevents them from serving the community.
Mr. Evans: Clearly, I am grateful for the money that has gone into Longridge. Is it possible, however, to examine what the Association of Convenience Stores has suggested: a 100 per cent write-off for equipment that is used for security in smaller stores?
Mr. Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is right: we must look at how we can most effectively help as a result of the consultation. I know that he and the convenience store organisation will have some input into that consultation and will evaluate all the views to enable us to allocate what moneys are available in the most appropriate way and ensure that they are used effectively.
We also continue to support retail business crime partnerships. My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) raised that issue, and I am aware of the work that she has been doing with the British Retail Consortium for some time.
Some valid issues have been raised in relation to the potential for effective partnerships through working with larger stores in larger city-centre locations. Coupled with the issue of cash, with which many small businesses, because of the nature of their business and the size of the transactions that they conduct, are forced to operate, there can be such potential. If we spread effectively that partnership working to the localities, and connect with small businesses, we can dislocate crime in those areas.
When I talk to small retailers and the people who have been involved in the consultation, I am told that, in respect of crime reduction partnerships, there is a feeling that it is difficult to make contact and engage properly with small retailers, yet small retailers feel that they are not getting access to crime reduction partnerships and policies that operate in their local area. We therefore need to try to do everything that we can, as a result of the consultation, to find ways and means of breaking down those barriers to ensure that small businesses input properly into and receive advice from local partnerships, retail crime partnerships and crime reduction partnerships in their local area. There is certainly a problem, and much work that needs to be done, in relation to expanding our ability to make those contacts.
The partnerships that exist have proved valuable. They have helped to identify and exclude offenders from retail centres. We are exploring the possibility of a pilot scheme to see whether schemes can be extended to include access to drug treatment services. The hon. Member for Ribble Valley mentioned the impact that drug addiction and the problems flowing from it have on business crime. As he will know, we are expanding treatment considerably: we plan to double the amount of treatment places under the drug strategy between now and 2008. We need to get into treatment—and we will do so by that time—at least 250,000 problematic drug users. At the moment, the maximum figure on which we could impact is about half that. The amount of drug treatment available, however, is growing at about 8 per cent. a year. We need to target that properly so that all those people who come into contact with the criminal justice system are brought speedily into treatment.
There is no point in our being able to identify problematic drug offenders and to make those issues known to the court if they must then wait four to five
516
weeks for access to drug treatment, because in the meantime they will commit crime, and businesses, at least in part, will be on the receiving end of their crimes. I have asked the hon. Gentleman to accept that although the situation is nowhere near what it needs to be, access times for drug treatment have fallen considerably. We need to drive those down even further, and we need to do so in the areas where there is the greatest need.
Many of the Government's crime reduction programmes and initiatives, including our CCTV schemes, are aimed at reducing robbery, theft, reoffending and drug misuse problems. They also contribute to reducing crimes that impact on business.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the Adjournment debate on 14 May that was held by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Watson), in which I addressed various issues concerning criminal attacks on shop workers. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that my hon. Friend majored on the more substantial retail outlets, and I agree that there should be no tolerance of violence against shop workers—whether the employees of large concerns or small business people struggling to provide a service to their community and to keep their businesses alive. The issue is effectively the same. As the hon. Gentleman said, people sometimes dismiss crimes such as shoplifting as victimless crimes. They are not victimless crimes, because they destroy the profitability of businesses and their very existence in many circumstances.
I made it clear in that debate that any form of violence is unacceptable and should not be tolerated. Under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, all employers have a legal duty to ensure—so far as is reasonably practicable—the health, safety and welfare of their employees. Their duty includes risks arising from violence at work. The Health and Safety Executive has issued guidance that can help businesses to deal with violence against staff working in the retail sector. The debate also covered the practical guides that the HSE produced to tackle the problems and causes of work-related violence.
The HSE's publication, "Work-related violence: managing the risk in smaller businesses", will particularly interest the hon. Gentleman, given the practical help that it outlines to assist smaller businesses. The process of managing the risk from violence is similar to that for other health and safety risks. The key aspects of successful management are to identify the risks and decide what measures can be taken to prevent and to control them. The guide sets out a straightforward four-stage approach for tackling violence and includes case studies, including one involving a convenience store. It shows that there is usually a range of solutions to every problem. In particular, the guide demonstrates that the most effective measures do not have to be expensive. The most cost-effective solutions usually arise from the way in which the business is run, such as staff training, work schedules and the physical environment.
We need to be more effective at making contact with small businesses, and the advice and methodology is available to help them to minimise some of the risks that they face. However, they often do not have the wherewithal, the time and the contacts to receive that

517
information. We must try to ensure that we set up a system that helps them to access the information that is available.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will also be interested to know that the HSE has commissioned research to find examples of good practice in preventing and managing violence to lone workers, including shop workers. The findings of the research are due to be published on its website this summer.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that the ongoing measures that I have outlined demonstrate that we are fully aware of the problems of crime and associated violence that can face those who own,
518
operate and work in small businesses. We shall continue to work with all our stakeholders, especially businesses themselves, to try to build on successes that we have had to reduce considerably the incidence of certain crimes. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will want to have input in the consultation and determine whether it can be used to include a wider range of retailers to make it absolutely certain that we not only cover major city centres and district shopping centres but provide good access, advice and partnership working for lone businesses that serve our communities, such as rural outlets in deprived areas throughout the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

PRIME MINISTER

  Iraq
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact on the risk from al-Qaeda terrorist attacks on the UK of the Coalition invasion of Iraq. [115566]

  The Prime Minister
  The terrorist threat remains real and serious. As recent events have shown, no country is immune from attack, and it is simply not possible to guarantee against more attacks in the future. However, the Government remain resolute in their determination to defeat terrorism regardless of its source.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Prime Minister what guarantees will be offered to serving members of the intelligence services wishing to give evidence to the Intelligence and Security Committee inquiry into the Government's conduct and preparation for the war in Iraq that legal or disciplinary action will not be instituted against them as a consequence of their submissions. [117921]

  The Prime Minister
  It is for the Intelligence and Security Committee, in accordance with section 10(4) and Schedule 3 of the Intelligence Services Act 1994, to establish the procedures and operation of their inquiry. I anticipate that the Committee will be taking evidence from members of the intelligence and security agencies in their normal way.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Overseas Trips
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General if she will list each of the overseas trips made by herself and other members of her ministerial team in 2002; and what the(a) purpose and (b) cost of each trip was. [101839]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 12 March 2003]Since 1999 this Government have published an annual list of all visits overseas undertaken by Cabinet Ministers costing £500 or more during each financial year. The Government have also published on an annual basis the cost of all Ministers' visits overseas. Copies of the lists are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Information for 1997–98 was included in the 1999 list. The overall cost of Ministers' visits for the years
  574W
  1995–96 and 1996–97 was most recently provided with the 2001 list. The information for 2002–03 will be published as soon as possible after the end of the financial year.

  All travel is undertaken fully in accordance with the rules set out in the Ministerial Code and Travel by Ministers, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General how many staff in the Department were on long term sick leave in each of the last five years. [109262]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 28 April 2003]The information requested is as follows.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The numbers of staff in the Crown Prosecution Service who have had periods of long-term sick leave (20 calendar days or more) in each of the last five years are listed in the table.

  Year

  Number of people

  Total number of employees

  Percentage of employees

  1998

  572

  6066

  8.7

  1999

  762

  6139

  12.4

  2000

  855

  6220

  13.7

  2001

  886

  6216

  14.3

  2002

  915

  6759

  13.5

  Serious Fraud Office

  The number of staff in the Serious Fraud Office who have had periods of long term sick leave in each of the last three years are listed in the table.

  Number of staff absent

  Year

  due to long term sick leave

  2002

  8

  2001

  3

  2000

  5

  It is not possible to provide information on long term sick absences in 1998 and 1999 without incurring disproportionate cost, as the requested information is not readily available for these years. In calculating the above figures, 'long term' is defined as being a continuous spell of sick absences lasting 4 weeks or more.

  The number of staff taking long term sick leave in the Treasury Solicitor's Department (defined as one month or more) in each of the last five years was:

  Number

  1998–99

  24

  1999–2000

  30

  2000–01

  41

  2001–02

  47

  2002–03

  46

  These figures include Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers staff.
  575W
  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  Since HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate was established as a separate unit in 2000 only four members of staff have taken long term sick leave of more than four weeks.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General what the salary bill was for special advisers in her Department in 2002–03; and what it is expected to be in 2003–04. [108494]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]: None of the Departments for which the Attorney-General holds ministerial responsibility employs special advisers.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Senior Clergy (Freehold Status)
  Mr. Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, what plans the Church Commissioners have to review the status of the freehold in terms of senior clergy. [118187]

  Mr. Bell
  As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Archbishops' Council has set up a group to review clergy terms of service. The first task of the group is to consider ways of improving security for those clergy who do not have freehold of office or employment contracts. The subsequent task, as defined by the terms of reference, is to consider the future of the freehold, irrespective of seniority.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Cars
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what effect the charge on the disposal of cars no longer licensed has had on the number of abandoned cars. [115930]

  Mr. Meacher
  Local authorities have the power to charge the person who they consider has abandoned a vehicle—for removal, storage and disposal costs—irrespective of whether a vehicle is licensed or not.

  Local authorities have, however, had increasing difficulty in enforcing these charges because of the ease with which vehicles can fall out of the current UK vehicles register. New measures being introduced in January 2004, including an automatic £80 fine for failure to re-license a vehicle on time, should help remedy this problem by ensuring that a vehicle has a traceable keeper. If local authorities can enforce charges against those who abandon cars, this should act as a deterrent to their doing so.

  Action Energy
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with(a) the Carbon Trust and (b) Action Energy about changes imposed by a private company in the contracts with consultants to bring business to Action Energy. [114705]

  Mr. Morley
  The Carbon Trust is a private company created in April 2001 to take the lead on energy efficiency in the business and public sectors, and to support the development of the low carbon sector in the UK.

  Action Energy is the UK's main energy efficiency information, advice and outreach programme for non-domestic organisations in the public and private sectors.

  My Department, and the Devolved Administrations, provide the Carbon Trust with grant funding, subject to an agreed business plan for the Carbon Trust and its programmes (including Action Energy). The Business Plan, agreed with my Department and the Devolved Administrations, describes how the Carbon Trust intends to improve service delivery of Action Energy, in particular updated delivery targets. The management of Action Energy and on-going contractual arrangements are a matter for the Carbon Trust.

  Air Quality
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning her Department's publication of report on the Review of the National Air Quality Strategy. [117532]

  Alun Michael
  A summary of responses to the report on the Review of the National Air Quality Strategy was published in the Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland: A consultation 578W
  document, issued in August 1999 by the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. The Government's current Air Quality Strategy was published in January 2000. Following a review of three of the pollutants in the Strategy, my Department published a consultation document in September 2001 on proposals for tighter air quality objectives for particles, benzene, carbon monoxide and a new objective for polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons. A summary of responses to these proposals was published on the Department's website in August last year when we announced the adoption of the new objectives. These were formally incorporated into the Air Quality Strategy by an Addendum published in February this year.

  Copies of these documents can be found on my Department's website at http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/airqualitv/index.htm

  Asbestos
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether a licence to operate a hazardous waste site includes permission(a) to store and (b) to process asbestos waste. [116201]

  Mr. Meacher
  Waste management licences are site specific and are subject to individual conditions regulating the activity in question. Whether a licence for a hazardous waste site includes permission to store and process asbestos waste will depend on

  (a) what has been applied for in respect of that site; and

  (b) what the Agency has permitted in that particular case.

  This will depend on whether the land in question has the benefit of the necessary planning permission.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how asbestos at waste disposal sites is classified; and if she will make a statement. [116206]

  Mr. Meacher
  All asbestos waste is classified as hazardous waste for the purposes of disposal and should go to landfill, either to a designated hazardous waste site or to a stabilised cell for non-reactive hazardous wastes within a non-hazardous waste site.

  For the purposes of classification, landfill sites in England and Wales are regulated by the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. In those Regulations, "hazardous waste" is defined as any waste as defined in Article 1(4) of the Hazardous Waste Directive (Directive 91/689/EEC).

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the addresses of waste disposal and recycling sites in the United Kingdom licensed by the Environment Agency to accept bonded asbestos. [116207]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency has provided a list of sites which are specifically licensed to accept bonded asbestos. A copy of this has been placed in the Library of the House.
  579W
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what monitoring of bonded asbestos at waste disposal sites other than operator pollution risk appraisals is carried out by the Environment Agency. [116209]

  Mr. Meacher
  There is no specific monitoring required of bonded asbestos at waste disposal sites.

  Each case will be considered using risk assessment methodology and any necessary arrangements put in place accordingly.

  Cotswold Conservation Board
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that parish representation on the proposed Cotswold Conservation Board accurately reflects the geographical spread of parishes within the area of outstanding natural beauty. [117610]

  Alun Michael
  The Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000 requires at least 20 per cent. of the total membership of an AONB Conservation Board to be drawn from the constituent parishes for that area.

  This Department is currently considering the responses to an informal consultation on a draft Establishment Order for a Cotswolds Conservation Board, which would include eight parish members. The draft Order provides for a single parish member to be elected from each of eight groupings of parishes so as to provide the widest possible geographical representation. These proposals take account of discussions with the Cotswold Partnership and each parish in the Cotswolds has been consulted on them.

  Emissions
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is taking to ensure the compatibility of the new EU emissions trading scheme with the Energy Efficiency Commitment introduced in April 2002. [116172]

  Mr. Meacher
  This Department has the lead responsibility in Government for the EU emissions Trading scheme. The Government will take into account all existing policies, including the first Energy Efficiency Commitment, that affect emissions of sectors that will come into the EU emission trading scheme in preparing the draft of the UK's national allocation plan. We will also incorporate estimates of the impact on emissions from forthcoming policies in determining the allocation of allowances.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made by her Department towards meeting the target of reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60 per cent. by 2050; and what representations she has received. [116180]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Energy White Paper accepted the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution's (RCEP) recommendation that the UK should put itself 580W
  on a path towards a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions of some 60 per cent. from current levels by about 2050. The Energy White Paper sets out a long term strategic vision for energy policy, setting out long-term strategies and shorter-term policies to put us on this path. A cross-governmental network, the Sustainable Energy Policy Network, will ensure that the aims set out in the Energy White Paper are delivered. The network will report annually on the progress being made towards these aims.

  Provisional data for carbon dioxide emissions are now available for 2002. This data shows emissions fell by an estimated 8 to 9 per cent. between 1990 and 2002, which demonstrates that the Government are making progress towards the domestic goal to reduce carbon dioxide emissions to 20 per cent. below 1990 levels by 2010.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning progress being made towards the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 12 per cent. by 2012. [116181]

  Mr. Meacher
  The UK's target under the Kyoto Protocol is to reduce emissions of a basket of six greenhouse gases to 12.5 per cent. below base year levels by 2008–2012.

  Data for emissions of the basket of six greenhouse gases for 2001, submitted to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in April 2003, show that emissions fell by 12.3 per cent. between the base year and 2001.

  Our latest projections also indicate that we are well on course to meet our Kyoto commitment. This conclusion is supported by two recent, independent assessments.

  The Secretariat of the UNFCCC, in its report on the in-depth review of the UK's Third National Communication (3NC) report, published in May 2003, stated that the UK has put in place a diverse and innovative spectrum of measures to tackle climate change and is on course to meet its Kyoto greenhouse gas emissions target.

  The Sustainable Development Commission also found, in its audit of the UK Climate Change Programme published in February 2003, that the UK appears very likely to achieve its Kyoto commitment.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what timetable has been established by her Department for the publication of an implementation plan setting out how the Defra strategy for domestic energy efficiency improvements, as outlined in the Energy White Paper, will be delivered; and if she will make a statement. [114682]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 22 May 2003]The implementation plan for the energy efficiency strategy set out in the Energy White Paper will be published within a year of the publication of the White Paper. Within the framework of the virtual Sustainable Energy
  581W
  Policy Network, an energy efficiency workstream has been established and this group will be responsible for drawing up this implementation plan.

  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what targets her Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how she intends to achieve these targets. [116654]

  Mr. Morley
  All departments currently have an interim target of 1 per cent. per annum reductions in (weather-corrected) CO2 emissions from their estate, relative to the base-year 1999–2000. Defra will agree new targets for 2010, based on benchmarking the performance of individual buildings where possible, by the end of this year.

  This approach should also provide departmental energy managers with an effective management tool to identify the best opportunities for efficiency improvements. Detailed measures will be a matter for individual circumstances.

  Environmental Information
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps are being taken by her Department to improve public access to information on(a) air quality and (b) water quality in England and Wales. [117480]

  Alun Michael
  Defra actively publishes and releases information according to the Freedom of Information Act 2000. Its Publication Scheme can be viewed at www.defra.qov.uk/corporate/opengov/accessinfo.htm. The Information Commissioner has approved the scheme. Defra will also release information on request wherever possible.

  Policy related air quality information, including the Air Quality Strategy is available on the Defra website (www.defra.qov.uk/environment/airqualitv/). Comprehensive information on past and present air quality and health is published through the Air Quality Information Service on the National Air Quality Information Archive website (www.airqualitv.co.uk), Teletext (page 156) and a freephone helpline (0800 556677). The information is updated hourly. Air Quality is also included in the Government's headline quality of life indicators, which are published annually and announced by means of a press notice. Information is also included in leaflets and reports produced by and on behalf of Defra and the Devolved Administrations.

  Defra actively reviews and develops the air quality information it publishes. For example, the Archive was relaunched in May 2002 following improvements to the user friendliness of the pages.

  The Environment Agency is the main provider of environmental information in England under the Environmental Information Regulations. The results of the Agency's General Water Quality Assessment scheme are reported annually and are included in the Government's headline quality of life indicators, which are published annually and announced by means of a press notice. The national and regional results are also
  582W
  published on the Agency's website (www.environmentagency.gov.uk) and in fact sheets and reports, as well as on the Defra website (www.defra.co.uk/news/2002/ 0210Q3a.htm), and the Agency answers an estimated 350,000 queries annually, many of which are related to water quality.

  As part of the Agency's Freedom of Information Act publication scheme, the water quality grades for each river stretch are included on the Agency's website under 'What's in Your Backyard'. This site is designed to provide easy access for the public to information about their local environment. Water quality sample results are also placed on the agency public registers and available for inspection in every area office.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received concerning measures required to improve the quantity and quality of public information on(a) air quality and (b) water quality, broken down by region in England and Wales. [117481]

  Alun Michael
  As a devolved matter, this answer relates to England.

  The Department issued a consultation document in January 2001 on the air quality public information bulletin. A summary of the responses to this document are available on http://www.defra.gsi.gov.uk/environment/consult/airpoll/response.htm. The Department is not aware of any other representations concerning access to air quality information in England, which is freely available.

  Hedgerows
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many miles of hedgerows there are on the Isle of Wight(a) in total and (b) protected by the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. [105946]

  Mr. Meacher
  We have no figures for the total length of hedgerows on the Isle of Wight, nor do we have actual figures for the length of hedgerows protected by the Hedgerows Regulations 1997. However, research carried out in 1999 indicated that more than 70 per cent. of countryside hedgerows may be protected by the Regulations by virtue of the fact that they form an integral part of a pre-1845 field system—a criterion that, when met, allows local planning authorities to refuse applications for removal. As the Regulations also lay down other criteria that can be used to prevent removal, the proportion protected may well be greater than 70 per cent., across the country as a whole.

  Ingram Works
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent estimate the Environment Agency has made of the amount of waste tonnage being disposed of weekly at the waste disposal and landfill site operated by Harry Sanders Ltd. at Ingram Works in Leeds. [116328]

  Mr. Meacher
  The most recent waste return submitted by the operator to the Environment Agency indicates
  583W
  that the site received 1,370.5 tonnes of waste in the period from 1 January 2003 to 31 March 2003. This equates to a weekly input of 114.2 tonnes.

  International Whaling Commission
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the outcomes of the annual International Whaling Commission meeting in Japan. [117101]

  Mr. Morley
  The outcomes of the 54th annual meeting of the International Whaling Commission (IWC), held in Japan in May 2002. were detailed in my letter of 10 July 2002 to hon. Members of the House. Copies of the letter were placed in the Library of the House.

  OSPAR Commission
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how often the countries which belong to the OSPAR Commission have met since July 1998 on matters within its auspices; what subjects they discussed; and what issues or matters were implemented. [116124]

  Mr. Meacher
  The OSPAR Commission, comprising representatives of each of the contracting parties, meets annually. It is supported by six committees (hazardous substances, biodiversity, eutrophication, radioactive substances, offshore oil and gas production, and assessment and monitoring) and a number of sub-committees, each of which also meets annually. The Commission has discussed progress on each of the six issues each year, and has agreed Decisions, Recommendation, guidelines and joint work programmes as appropriate in order to implement the OSPAR strategies. The Summary Records produced after each meeting provide a publicly available account of issues discussed and measures agreed—they may be found at: www.ospar.org

  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps have been taken by the countries forming the OSPAR Commission to agree a baseline from which to measure whether reductions in radioactive discharges have taken place. [116125]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]In 2001, OSPAR's Radioactive Substances Committee set up working groups to recommend baselines for discharges, concentrations and dose. The final reports of the working groups were considered by the Committee at its meeting in February 2003. The Committee has been unable to reach agreement on the discharges baseline. It is expected that the issue will be resolved at the OSPAR Commission meeting in June this year.

  Waste Management
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what total weight of waste she estimates will be(a) recycled, (b) landfilled, (c) incinerated and (d) treated in other ways in the year 2010; and what percentage change on current figures this represents for each of the options. [114254]
  584W
  Mr. Meacher
  No estimates have yet been made of what weight of waste will be dealt with in each of the ways listed in 2010. The amount of waste treated under the different waste management options will depend on the actions of householders, waste disposal and collection authorities, business and others, in response to the measures Government have, or intend to, put in place including the targets listed below, to reduce waste growth and increase levels of re-use and recycling.

  The Landfill Directive requires reductions in the landfill of bio-degradable municipal waste to 75 per cent. of the total amount of bio-degradable municipal waste produced in 1995 by 2010, equivalent to 11.2 million tonnes (including the four year derogation that the UK has indicated that it intends to use).

  By 2010, the Government's target is to recycle or compost 30 per cent. of householdwaste.

  The Government's target for commercial and industrial waste is to reduce the amount landfilled in 2005 to 85 per cent. of 1998 levels.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the cost was for external consultants to assist the Environment Agency with the production and guidance relating to waste management in the years 1998 to 2002; and what proportion this expenditure represented of the Environment Agency's total budget for waste management. [115772]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Agency spend on external consultants for the production of waste regulation related guidance in each of the years 1998–2002 is approximately £1.5 million per annum. This represents 2.0 per cent. of the Agency's total budget for waste management in the 2002–03 year.

  Year

  Total Budget (£m)

  Proportion (per cent.)

  1998–99

  65.9

  2.3

  1999–2000

  69.5

  2.2

  2000–01

  72.8

  2.0

  2001–02

  73.9

  2.0

  2002–03

  76.8

  2.0

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to set(a) commercial waste reduction and (b) commercial waste recycling targets for (i) local authorities and (ii) industrial sectors; [115941]

  (2) what steps are being taken by her Department to encourage the commercial sector to minimise waste and increase recycling rates; [115943]

  (3) what measures her Department is planning to assist local authorities to encourage the commercial sector to (a) minimise commercial waste at source, (b) increase recycling and (c) achieve a reduction in commercial waste levels. [115942]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Government have set a target to reduce, by 2005–06, the amount of commercial and industrial waste going to landfill to 85 per cent. of 1998 levels. Current estimates suggest that we are on course to meet this target.
  585W
  The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) set targets for the recovery and recycling of packaging waste and provide incentives to minimise the amount of packaging handled. Between 1999 and 2002, the amount of packaging waste sent to landfill fell from 5.7 to 4.4 million tonnes, although the 2002 figure is still provisional at this stage.

  The Government have entered into a voluntary agreement with the newspaper industry, which has seen recycled content of newspapers increase to well over the target of 60 per cent. last year. The Government are looking to enter into more agreements of this kind.

  The Government fund Envirowise, a business support programme dedicated to making businesses more resource efficient, saving money by minimising waste. Last year alone, Envirowise helped UK businesses to achieve annual cost savings of over £175 million, with a reduction of 1.6 million tonnes of solid waste. They also fund the Sustainable Technologies Initiative that provides funding for research and development projects aimed at minimising waste at source.

  There are no plans to set local authority targets for commercial waste, since they have no statutory duty to collect commercial waste unless asked to do so by the business.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department is planning to take to enable local authorities to refuse to dispose of waste that has been imported from other authorities to be landfilled within their areas of responsibility; and if she will make a statement. [115945]

  Mr. Meacher
  There are no plans to enable local authorities to refuse to dispose of waste imported from other authorities. The Government have issued guidance to local authorities on preparing municipal waste management strategies, Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies (DETR March 2001); http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/guidance/mwms/index.htm and on preparing waste local plans, Planning and Policy Guidance Note 10 on 'Planning and Waste Management'. Under that guidance, local authorities must take account of the proximity principle—which suggests that waste should generally be disposed of as near to its place of production as possible—in determining the Best Practicable Environmental Option for managing waste.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what materials are classified as hazardous waste for the purposes of licensing waste disposal and landfill sites. [116202]

  Mr. Meacher
  Landfill sites in England and Wales are regulated by the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002. In those Regulations, "hazardous waste" is defined as any waste as defined in Article 1(4) of the Hazardous Waste Directive (Directive 91/689/ EEC). For most licensed waste disposal sites other than landfill in the UK the term special waste would be used as defined in Regulation 2 of the Special Waste 586W
  Regulations 1996. The Government are currently reviewing the Special Waste Regulations in order to bring the terms special and hazardous into line.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions have been brought by the Environment Agency for breaking conditions of management site licences in each year since the Agency was established; and how many were successful. [116203]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency's National Enforcement Database (NEDS) was inaugurated on 1 April 1999. The Agency is able to provide national data on enforcement actions from that date, as follows:

  Total number per calendar year of prosecutions for contravening the conditions of a waste management licence contrary to section 33 (6) of the Environmental Protection Act 1990

  Number

  1999 (from 1 April)

  17

  2000

  23

  2001

  25

  2002

  28

  2003 (to date)

  9

  All prosecutions were successful with the exception of one acquittal in 2002.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the difference between special waste and hazardous waste is for the purpose of licensing waste disposal sites. [116329]

  Mr. Meacher
  Special waste is the term used in the UK for hazardous waste and is defined in Regulation 2 of the Special Waste Regulations 1996. Hazardous waste is the term defined in the Hazardous Waste Directive (91/ 689/EEC) as a waste featuring on the European hazardous waste list. This list was recently revised and the European Commission brought the new list into force on 1 January 2002. At present, the Special Waste Regulations are still extant in Great Britain and the term "special" waste is still used in many waste management licences. However, some legislation such as the landfill regulations, already refer to "hazardous" waste as defined in the Hazardous Waste Directive. This means that some wastes not defined as special wastes in UK legislation would still have to dealt with in accordance with the requirements for "hazardous" wastes if disposed of to landfill. The Government are also reviewing the Special Waste Regulations and as part of the review the intention is to replace the term "special" with "hazardous", and to transpose the revised hazardous waste list.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many modifications to waste management site licences since 1997 have been regularisation of existing practices at waste disposal and landfill sites. [116332]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Environment Agency carry out initiated modifications without a fee from the licensee and they are usually for the purpose of bringing sites into line with new or existing regulatory standards, e.g. Financial Provision, record keeping.
  587W
  On this basis, figures are available but only back as far as 1999–2000:

  1999–2000—1,463

  2000–01—379

  2001–02—265

  2002–03—211

TRANSPORT

  Biofuels
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which Department is responsible for co-ordinating Government policy on the development of the use of biofuels. [117542]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Department for Transport is responsible for co-ordinating overall Government policy on the use of biofuels in the transport sector. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is, however, responsible for policy on all taxation issues, including duty incentives for biofuels.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what preparations his Department is making for the introduction of the Biofuels Directive later this year; and if he will make a statement. [117543]

  Mr. Spellar
  The United Kingdom and other European Union member states are required, under the terms of the recently agreed Directive on the Promotion of Biofuels and other Renewable Fuels for Road Transport, to set their own indicative targets for the use of biofuels and other renewable fuels in their areas. Member states are required to set indicative targets to be met in the years 2005 and 2010, and to notify the European Commission of these targets by July 2005 and July 2006 respectively. The Government will consult key stakeholders in due course on possible indicative targets for biofuels sales and sales of other renewable fuels in the UK, as well as on the most appropriate ways of meeting these targets. Regulations will then be laid before the House in advance of the Directive's transposition date of 31 December 2004.

  The Government have already put in place a number of measures to incentivise the production and use of biofuels in the UK. These include a 20 pence per litre fuel duty incentive for biodiesel, which came into effect in July 2002. Sales of biodiesel in the UK have increased significantly as a result of this, and are now getting on for a million litres a month. Budget 2003 announced that a similar duty incentive in favour of bioethanol would come into effect in January 2005. It also indicated that the Government are considering how best to give further support to bioethanol produced from lignocellulosic feedstocks, which potentially offers even greater environmental benefits.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which Minister in his Department is responsible for developing transport policy on the use of biofuels. [117589]
  588W
  Mr. Spellar
  The Secretary of State for Transport has overall responsibility for developing all transport policies, including policies on biofuels. He is supported in this by myself and by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport.

  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will take steps to investigate the basis on which car manufacturers impose a lower limit for the use of biofuels in the UK than in the rest of the EU for the purposes of the engine warranty. [117593]

  Mr. Spellar
  Almost all new diesel cars can run on biodiesel without any problems and without invalidating the manufacturer's engine warranty, provided that the biodiesel is blended into mineral diesel at a ratio of no more than 5 per cent. biodiesel to 95 per cent. mineral diesel, and provided that the biodiesel itself is of good quality. Higher rates of biodiesel in blends could cause performance problems and engine damage in some vehicles and would currently invalidate most vehicle manufacturer's vehicle warranties, both in the UK and elsewhere.

  The suitability of any diesel vehicle to run on blends consisting of more than 5 per cent. biodiesel is dependent upon the make and model of the car, rather than the country in which it is sold and used. For example, new Volkswagen diesel cars are warranted to run on 100 per cent. biodiesel anywhere in the EU. Supplies of 100 per cent. biodiesel are not widely available in the UK, however, and studies show that a greater environmental benefit can be achieved by using the available fuel in blends with mineral diesel than by using it as 100 per cent. biodiesel.

  Bioethanol, which can be used as a blend in petrol cars, is not yet on sale in the UK. Budget 2003 announced that a duty incentive for bioethanol of 20 pence per litre would be introduced in January 2005. Ford has developed a 'flex-fuel' petrol-engined vehicle, which can run on blends of up to 85 per cent. bioethanol, and which is already on sale in some other European countries (notably Sweden). Once bioethanol becomes available in the UK, it is likely that similar vehicles will be sold here, with similar warranties.

  Air Transport Consultation
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses his Department has received to the Future of Air Transport-Scotland Consultation document, broken down by local authority area. [118252]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We have not broken down the number of responses by local authority area. However by 1 June 2003 we had received over 1,500 responses concerning Scotland.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Future of Air Transport-Scotland consultation documents have been(a) sent out and (b) downloaded. [117093]

  Mr. Jamieson
  By 1 June over 29,000 paper copies of the Scottish consultation documents had been despatched and 32,000 documents were successfully downloaded from our website.
  589W
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many consultation forms had been returned from the Midlands Region Airport proposals by 1 June 2003. [117386]

  Mr. Jamieson
  By 1 June 2003, we received just over 21,000 completed Midlands' questionnaires in response to the consultation.

  Blue Lamp Vehicles
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list classes of vehicles that have an entitlement to use blue lamps; and if he will list regulations that are in force that control the use of blue lamps on vehicles. [117757]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 restrict the fitting of blue warning beacons or special warning lamps to emergency vehicles. The meaning of an emergency vehicle in these regulations is defined as a motor vehicle of any of the following descriptions(a) a vehicle used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes;
  (b) an ambulance, being a vehicle (other than an invalid carriage) which is constructed or adapted for the purposes of conveying sick, injured or disabled persons and which is used for such purposes;
  (c) a vehicle owned by a body formed primarily for the purposes of fire salvage and used for those or similar purposes;
  (d) a vehicle owned by the Forestry Commission or by a local authority and used from time to time for the purposes of fighting fires;
  (e) a vehicle owned by the Secretary of State for Defence and used

  (i) for the purposes of the disposal of bombs or explosives,

  (ii) by the Naval Emergency Monitoring Organisation for the purposes of a nuclear accident or an incident involving radioactivity,

  (iii) by the Royal Air Force Mountain Rescue Service for the purposes of rescue operations or any other emergencies, or

  (iv) by the Royal Air Force Armament Support Unit;

  (f) a vehicle primarily used for the purposes of the Blood Transfusion Service provided under the National Health Service Act 1977(a) or under the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978(b);
  (g) a vehicle used by Her Majesty's Coastguard or Coastguard Auxiliary Service for the purposes of giving aid to persons in danger or vessels in distress on or near the coast;
  (h) a vehicle owned by the British Coal Corporation and used for the purposes of rescue operations at mines;
  (i) a vehicle owned by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and used for the purposes of launching lifeboats; and
  (j) a vehicle primarily used for the purposes of conveying any human tissue for transplanting or similar purposes.

  Regulation 27 of the same regulations prohibits the use of warning beacons emitting blue light and special warning lamps by emergency vehicles except (i) at the scene of an emergency (ii) or when it is necessary or desirable either to indicate to persons using the road the urgency of the purpose for which the vehicle is being used, or to warn persons of the presence of the vehicle or hazard on the road.
  590W
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the legal instruments that(a) control the behaviour of drivers in vehicles using blue lamps and (b) exempt drivers in vehicles attending emergency incidents from observing speed limits. [117758]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Regulations on the use of blue lights do not in themselves provide any special privileges for drivers.

  There are, however, certain relaxations often associated with the use of blue lights. Section 87 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 exempts drivers of vehicles used for fire brigade, ambulance or police purposes from speed limits in an emergency. The Zebra, Pelican and Puffin Pedestrian Crossings Regulations 1997 give qualified exemptions from signals at Pelican and Puffin crossings to vehicles being used for fire brigade, ambulance, national blood service and police purposes. The Traffic Signs Regulations 2002 give similar qualified exemptions from other red light signals and keep right/left arrows to vehicles being used for fire brigade, ambulance, bomb or explosive disposal, national blood service or police purposes.

  British Transport Police
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to amend the jurisdiction of the British Transport Police in respect of matters outside their immediate operating areas. [117730]

  Mr Jamieson
  The current railways jurisdiction of the BTP is provided by the British Transport Commission Act 1949 that allows their officers to act as constables on certain railway property, in the vicinity of this property and elsewhere in matters connected with the railways. This jurisdiction will be replaced by proposals in the Railways and Transport Safety Bill, currently before Parliament, which provides for an officer of the BTP to have all the powers and privileges of a constable on key pieces of railway infrastructure and throughout Great Britain for a purpose connected to a railway or to anything occurring on or in relation to a railway.

  The Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001 provides BTP officers with the powers and privileges of a constable outside the railways in certain urgent circumstances not related to the railways.

  Buses
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will amend the regulations on the passenger capacity of buses to recognise passengers' baggage as a restricting factor. [118033]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have no plans to amend the Public Service Vehicles Carrying Capacity Regulations to recognise passenger's baggage as a restricting factor. It would be impracticable to do this as luggage can vary so much in terms of size, weight and shape.

  The driver of a bus is responsible to ensure the safely of passengers on their vehicle and is permitted to limit the number of passengers and their baggage that may be carried if they believe that it would become a danger.

  Carbon Dioxide Emissions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 4 April 2003,Official Report, column 879W, on CO2 emissions, if he will break down the figures for road transport to show cars and light vans. [117722]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Annual carbon dioxide (CO2) and other emissions from the transport sector are published each year in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory, which is available at www.naei.org.uk, and in Transport Statistics Great Britain, which is available via my Department's website at www.dft.gov.uk. Ratified data are available up to the year 2000. Detailed CO2 emissions for cars and light goods vehicles since 1990 are set out in the following table (all figures are given as megatonnes of carbon equivalents).

  Cars

  LGV

  1990

  18.76

  3.43

  1991

  18.68

  3.54

  1992

  19.02

  3.60

  1993

  19.13

  3.67

  1994

  18.69

  3.76

  1995

  18.30

  3.86

  1996

  18.93

  4.11

  1997

  19.05

  4.15

  1998

  18.81

  4.32

  1999

  19.06

  4.32

  2000

  18.93

  4.34

  Note:

  Figures given in this table are emissions "by source" and do not include emissions from the production of transport fuels and electricity. "Other transport" includes railways, domestic aviation and military aircraft, shipping, naval vessels and off-road sources. For further details, please see the explanatory notes in the National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory and in Transport Statistic Great Britain.

  Channel Tunnel
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has made to the French Government in respect of the losses suffered by Road Track Ltd. as a result of the closure by SNCF of the Channel Tunnel and criminal damage committed in French freight yards; and if he will make a statement. [118212]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Throughout the period of major disruption to freight services from Calais Frethun, the Government made repeated and strenuous representations to the French Government about the effects on UK and foreign businesses and the need for urgent action by the French authorities to restore normal service. The Government have made clear that it is for the individual companies concerned to seek compensation from the French authorities or the railway operator, as some are now doing.

  Community Transport Schemes
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial support his Department has given to community transport schemes in each year since 1997. [117528]
  592W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A wide range of community transport services have since 1 May last year been eligible for the first time to receive Bus Service Operators Grant from my Department. 800 community transport organisations have already been accepted as eligible under this scheme. Expenditure in the scheme's first financial year, 2002–03, was £0.6 million and is expected to rise to £3 million this year.

  Community transport has also benefited significantly since 1998 from support of projects submitted successfully by local authorities to our Rural and Urban Bus Challenge competitions. We estimate that around one-third of the 400 projects supported under these schemes have a community transport element. In total over £120 million has been awarded in Challenge grants to local authorities. However, it is not possible to identify separately the proportion of this total paid by authorities to community transport bodies.

  In addition, my Department has since 1994 supported the Community Transport Association's Information and Advice Service. Until 2000–01 this grant was £70,000 annually and has been £100,000 annually since then.

  Concessionary Travel
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of pensioners use the concessionary travel scheme that operates within the Greater London area. [117151]

  Mr. Jamieson
  While figures for the actual usage of freedom passes are not available, in 2002, 83 per cent.of women over 60 and men over 65 obtained a freedom pass.

  As men aged 60 to 64 have only been eligible for a freedom pass on age grounds alone since 1 April 2003, there are no reliable figures for this age group.

  Croxley Rail Link
  Claire Ward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the progress of the Croxley Rail Link project. [117407]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My officials are working with the local authority promoters to develop the case for this scheme in order that it can be assessed within this year's local transport capital settlement.

  Cycles
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the new requirement for the fitting of a bell for pedal cycles for sale includes a requirement on the owner to have a working bell or other warning device fitted to the machine when it is being ridden. [117387]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 2003, which will introduce a requirement for a bell for all new pedal cycles, only covers their supply. There will be no requirement for the owner to have a bell or other warning device when the cycle is in use.
  593W
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will make it a requirement for the owners of pedal cycles to have working front and rear lights and a rear reflector fitted to the machine; [117404]

  (2) if he will make it a requirement for manufacturers, distributors and retailers of pedal cycles to fit front and rear lights and a rear reflector. [117405]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Road Vehicles Lighting Regulations 1989 already require pedal cycles in use on the roads between sunset and sunrise to be fitted with and use front and rear lamps and a rear retro reflector. Lamps and reflectors must be in good working order and lamps must be clean.

  The Pedal Bicycles (Safety) Regulations 1984 already require a rear reflector to be supplied on all new cycles. As many pedal cycles are never used after dark, the Government have no plans to extend this requirement to include front and rear lamps or to require owners of pedal cycles to have lamps fitted and working at all times.

  Deep Vein Thrombosis
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to issue guidance to airlines flying to and from the UK to inform passengers of the risks of deep vein thrombosis. [118071]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department of Health issued advice in November 2001 to UK and other airlines flying to and from this country on the risks of deep vein thrombosis. One of the tasks of the new Aviation Health Unit we are setting up within the Civil Aviation Authority will be to advise on keeping guidance such as this up to date.

  Departmental Expenditure
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list departmental expenditure for each year since 1997 and the administration costs limits set for 2003–04. [117733]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department came into existence in May 2002. However, comparative figures for the financial years 1998–99 onwards are available in the Department's Annual Report 2003 (Cm 5907), copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Total public spending for the financial years 1998–99 to 2001–02, estimated total public spending for 2002–03, and planned total public spending for 2003–04 to 2005–06 is shown in Table Al of the Report. Expenditure against administration costs limits from 1998–99 to 2001–02, estimated outturn for 2002–03 and the administration costs limits set for 2003–04 to 2005–06 are shown in Table A5.

  Information for 1997–98 is not available on a comparable basis.

  Equal Treatment and Non-discrimination Directive
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the effect upon(a) the recruitment of foreign seafarers and (b) the UK Ships Register of implementing the EU Directive on equal treatment and non-discrimination. [118282]
  594W
  Mr. Jamieson
  A Regulatory Impact Analysis was completed when the implementation of the EU Article 13 Race Directive was under consideration.

  Ferry Passengers
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the current percentage of passenger traffic using ferry links from UK ports who arrive at each point by public transport. [118339]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not available.

  Highways Infrastructure (Depreciation)
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what account is taken within the Strategic Planning Framework for Highways Maintenance Expenditure for depreciation of highways infrastructure; and how much such expenditure was in the latest year for which figures are available. [118097]

  Mr. Jamieson
  For 2001–02, the latest year for which figures are available, the Highways Agency allowed £175,333,000 for depreciation of the trunk road network in England. This figure relates almost entirely to bridges and tunnels, as the roads themselves are depreciated on a renewals accounting basis; that is, the level of expenditure on maintenance is treated as a proxy for the depreciation charge on the asset. Further details are available in the Agency's Annual Report and Accounts 2001–02, copies of which are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Local highway authorities in England are not currently required to value their road assets nor to establish a basis on which to depreciate them. The total provision for local highway maintenance in the 10-Year-Plan is £30.5 billion, of which £9.2 billion is capital funding and £21.3 billion is revenue funding. This is linked to the Plan target of eliminating the backlogs in road maintenance by the end of the Plan period.

  Licence Plates
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the number of cloned vehicle licence plates on UK roads; and if he will make a statement. [117666]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Statistics on the number of cloned vehicles in use on UK roads are not available. However, evidence from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency's Automated Number Plate Recognition (ANPR) systems suggests that cloning is being used by a small minority of motorists to evade fines and charges.

  Motor Cycles
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce a compulsory registration scheme for off road motorcycles. [117408]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no plans to do so. Off road motorcycling causes nuisance from time to time, but is not a major problem. It does not warrant a national registration scheme, which would be costly to set up and administer, and difficult to enforce.

  Oil Tanker Safety
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions have taken place with other EU member states regarding oil tanker safety since the wreck of the Prestige. [118281]

  Mr. Jamieson
  At the Transport Council in December 2002, 20 Conclusions on oil tanker safety were agreed. Since then we have worked closely with our colleagues in other Member States to take forward the measures set out in the Conclusions.

  Rail Services
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what duties(a) Network Rail and (b) the Strategic Rail Authority have taken over from train operating companies which have signed new franchise extensions of less than 10 years' duration. [116102]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None.

  Road Safety
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the regulations regarding the siting of(a) roundabouts and (b) traffic lights. [118567]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The appropriate method of regulating conflicting traffic movements at junctions, or providing crossing facilities for pedestrians and cyclists, is a matter for the engineering judgment of the traffic authority in the light of local circumstances. The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (SI 3113) specify the appearance of traffic signals, and of signs and markings associated with signals and roundabouts, and the circumstances in which traffic signs and signals may be placed.

  Sea Vision UK
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much funding has been allocated to Sea Vision UK; and what steps have been taken since 1997 to increase public awareness of the role of the sea to the UK. [118278]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We provided Sea Vision UK with £800 funding towards the cost of producing a publication to promote awareness of maritime careers in 2002 and have committed to providing funding for another such

  Date

  Tram

  Kerb guided bus

  1999

  London: Docklands Light Railway Lewisham extension opened November

  0

  West Midlands: Midland Metro line 1 (Birmingham to Wolverhampton) opened in May

  —

  2000

  London: Croydon Tramlink opened in May

  0

  2001

  —

  West Yorkshire: East Leeds Quality Bus Scheme opened in November

  2002

  Tyne and Wear: Tyne and Wear Metro extension to Sunderland and South Hylton opened in March

  West Yorkshire: Bradford-A641 Manchester Road opened January 2002

  Walking/Cycling
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage walking and cycling as alternatives to road transport; and if he will make a statement. [118149]
  596W
  publication in 2003. No other formal requests for funding have been received, but we fully support the initiative.

  Merchant Navy Day was launched in September 2000 to highlight the vital contribution to the nation of the UK shipping industry, and the need to encourage young people to consider a career at sea via the associated programme of events, Our Ships—Your Future.

  The Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme has been running since April 1998 and provides support for the training of officers and ratings, covering around 50 per cent. of training costs.

  Seafarer Training
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assistance has been given to the British shipping sector to train and employ British seafarers. [118279]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government's Support for Maritime Training (SMarT) scheme has been running since April 1998 and provides support for the training of officers and ratings. Following a review in 2000 and receipt of EU State Aids clearance in 2001, additional courses were included and the levels of funding increased to cover around 50 per cent. of the costs of training.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the OECD report on Availability and Training of Seafarers; and if he will make a statement. [118266]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I welcome the OECD report as a valuable contribution to the debate on means of increasing the training and employment of seafarers. In particular, I note the support for measures such as tonnage taxes, initiatives to promote maritime careers, and the need to ensure training for future jobs ashore normally filled by ex-seafarers. These accord with United Kingdom policy.

  Trams
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list, broken down by city,(a) tram and (b) guided bus systems that have been opened for each year since 1997. [117732]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The information is as follows:

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are committed to increasing walking and cycling journeys to help tackle local congestion and improve public health. We have established the National Cycling Strategy Board for England and engaged a team of regional cycling advocates to assist local authorities and organisations in
  597W
  increasing cycling. We intend within the next month to issue a consultation paper on encouraging more walking and improving conditions for pedestrians. This will build on discussions at a round of regional seminars on walking sponsored by my Department last year.

  Improved facilities for cyclists and pedestrians are largely funded through Local Transport Plans. Highway authorities are asked to develop local strategies to support and encourage cycling and walking as part of these plans. These must identify gaps in the local infrastructure and plans for delivering improvements.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps are being taken to develop a national walking strategy; and if he will make a statement. [118430]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We intend to publish a consultation paper on encouraging walking and improving conditions for pedestrians within the next month.

CABINET OFFICE

  Terrorism (Emergency Planning)
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will list the sources of information that are available on emergency planning in the event of a terrorist attack for members of the public who(a) are unable to access the internet and (b) are visually impaired; and if he will make a statement. [117277]

  Mr. Alexander
  The main source of information for the public in the event of a terrorist attack will be through the broadcasters and their full range of services.

  This includes TV (with sign language or subtitles as necessary), Radio including minority language broadcasts, Teletext, Ceefax and through websites. These will provide a range of accessible options for users with hearing or sight impairments. Such arrangements are appropriate to existing and anticipated threat levels.

  The core advice to the public is to "Go in, stay in, tune in" and follow the advice from the emergency services who will be best placed to decide the appropriate response.

  While many people do not have access to the Internet at home, through the People's Network programme (part of the UK online initiative) the technology is available in most public libraries together with trained staff to help new users of any age or ability.

  The Home Office website, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism, has details about the nature of any threat, general guidance on sensible precautions to take for a civil emergency, and detailed information about how Government work behind the scenes to protect the public. More sources of information can be found on www.ukresilience.info.

TREASURY

  Bank Regulation
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will set out the timetable for the introduction of 598W
  legislation to empower the Office of Fair Trading to regulate the bank clearing system; and if he will make a statement. [117717]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government are closely monitoring developments in payment systems and will introduce legislation to give the Office of Fair Trading new powers to promote effective competition in payment systems as soon as parliamentary time allows.

  Leisure/Hospitality Sectors
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate was of new job creation in the leisure and hospitality sector in the last 12 months. [117000]

  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. Gardiner, dated 9 June 2003:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question about the rate of new job creation in the Leisure and Hospitality sectors in the last 12 months. (117000)

  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 Great Britain in December of each year.

  The latest year for which figures are available is 2001 and so a comparison can be made with 2000.

  Between 2000 and 2001 the ABI data shows net increases in the number of employee jobs in the 2 specified sectors of:

  (a) Leisure: 34,200

  (b) Hospitality: 45,900

  Employment data are produced according to the internationally agreed Standard Industrial Classification (SJC92). The classes which best fit the categories for which data have been asked are:

  Leisure—Division 92 'Recreational, Cultural and Sporting Activities' but excluding Sporting Activities (92 less 92.6)

  Hospitality—Sector H. This includes all short-term accommodation, restaurants, pubs and other licensed premises and other catering (all of Division 55)

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people are employed in the(a) sport, (b) leisure and (c) hospitality sectors. [117003]

  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. Gardiner, dated 9 June 2003:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many people are employed in the (a) Sports, (b) Leisure and (c) Hospitality sectors. (117003)

  The Annual Business Inquiry (ABI) gives an estimate of the number of employee jobs in Great Britain in December of each year.

  The latest year for which figures are available is 2001.

  For 2001 the ABI data shows the number of employee jobs in the 3 specified sectors of:

  (a) Sport: 335,600

  (b) Leisure: 436,000

  (c) Hospitality: 1,656,800

  599W
  Employment data are produced according to the internationally agreed Standard Industrial Classification (S1C92). The classes which best fit the categories for which data have been asked are:

  Sport—Sporting Activities (92.6), Manufacture of Sport goods (36.4), Sale of sports goods (52.48/5), Hire of Sports Goods (71.40/1) and Physical Well-being activities (93.04)

  Leisure—Division 92 'Recreational, Cultural and Sporting Activities' but excluding Sporting Activities (92 less 92.6)

  Hospitality—Sector H. This includes all short-term accommodation, restaurants, pubs and other licensed premises and other catering (all of Division 55)

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what tax revenues were generated by the leisure and hospitality sector in the UK in each of the last five years; and what percentage of total tax revenues this represents. [117002]

  John Healey
  It is estimated that in 2000–01 tax receipts from valued added tax, income tax and national insurance contributions collected under PAYE, business rates and corporation tax relating to the leisure and hospitality sector amounted to around £25 billion, just under 7 per cent. of total Government receipts. This includes all receipts from betting and alcohol duty. This is a broad and partial estimate as information is not available on all types of tax revenues from the sector and there are also issues of classification and definition of a business with more than one principal activity, with many encompassing a wide range of activities.

  Microsoft
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Government Departments have signed contracts with Microsoft; how much each contract is worth; how long each contract agreement is for; how many of the contracts require the signing of a non-disclosure agreement regarding the source code of programmes installed; and how much it would cost to terminate each of the contracts before the completion date. [116657]

  Mr. Boateng
  Most Departments license some desktop software from Microsoft. In February 2002, the Office of Government Commerce entered into an agreement with Microsoft under which Microsoft software was offered to Government departments at discounts reflecting the overall level of Government purchasing. The details of individual contracts between Microsoft and departments are not held centrally. However the total value of spend by departments through the central GCAT contract amounted to £29.2 million in 2002–03.

  Most purchasing of Microsoft software is by outright purchase of perpetual licenses, with payment sometimes phased over a three year period. Disclosure of Microsoft source code is not a standard feature of these agreements.

  Suicides
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides of(a) 16-year olds, (b) 17-year olds and (c) 18-year olds there were in each year since 1997. [117577]

  John Healey
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.
  600W
  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mr. Paul Marsden, dated 9 June 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning how many suicides have been recorded for (a) 16-year olds, (b) 17-year olds and (c) 18-year olds in each year since 1997. I am replying in his absence. (117577)

  The most recent available mortality data are for the calendar year 2001. Figures for each year from 1997 to 2001 are given in the following table:

  Number of deaths from suicide and injury undetermined whether accidentally or purposely inflicted 1, persons aged 16,17 and 18, England and Wales, 1997 to 20012

  Number of deaths by individual year of age

  16-year olds

  17-year olds

  18-year olds

  1997

  27

  28

  42

  1998

  19

  41

  46

  1999

  20

  37

  57

  2000

  10

  43

  48

  2001

  17

  29

  45

  1 The cause of death was defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision (1 CD-9) codes E950-E959 and E980-E989 excluding E988.8 for the years 1997 to 2000, and, for the year 2001, the International Classifications of Diseases, Tenth Revision (1 CD-10) codes X60-X84 and Y 10-Y34 excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

  2 Figures are for deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  Aviation Industry
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will repeal the aviation industry's exemption from fuel duty and VAT. [116952]

  John Healey
  The Chicago Convention prohibits the imposition of taxes or charges on fuel kept on board aircraft and consumed on international flights. The UK is also bound by bilateral air service agreements, which impose further restrictions. Although air fares, in common with all public transport fares, are zero-rated for VAT, air travel is subject to a separate tax, air passenger duty, which is charged at rates from £5 to £40 per flight, depending on the country of destination and the class of travel.

  The 2002 pre-Budget Report announced that the Government would discuss with stakeholders the most effective economic instruments for ensuring that the industry is encouraged to take account of, and where appropriate reduce, its contribution to global warming, local air and noise pollution.

  These discussions will be used to inform the Government's views, which will be set out in its Air Transport White Paper later this year.

  Biofuels
  Mrs. Shephard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the Government Departments for which he is accountable is responsible for developing tax policy on the use of biofuels. [117592]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise and HM Treasury work closely together on developing the taxation policy for biofuels.

  HM Customs take the lead on providing policy advice while HM Treasury has strategic responsibility for taxation matters.

  Customs and Excise
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the establishment figure for Customs and Excise officers was in 1995; and what the latest available figure is. [118046]

  John Healey
  Customs and Excise employed the full time equivalent of 24,132 officers in April 1995. The latest published figure is for April 2002 when Customs had 22,120 full time equivalent employees.

  Insurance Discrimination
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that teenagers and children who have had cancer treatment are not excluded from access to financial services later in their lives. [118167]

  Mr. Boateng
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written answer I gave the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) on 10 February 2003,Official Report, column 603W.

  Regional Pay
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) trades unions and (b) other bodies concerning his plans to introduce a stronger local and regional element to pay in the public sector. [116941]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer regularly receives representations from trade union leaders and others concerning a wide range of issues including public sector pay.

  Tax Credits
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information he has collated on the take up rate of working family tax credits in the Borough of Islington in each of the past five years and the applicant rate for tax credits in the current year, the number paid out, the value outstanding and the number of complaints. [117809]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Working Families' Tax Credit (WFTC) was introduced in October 1999. The number of recipients in Islington at each quarter since May 2001 appears in "Working Families' and Disabled Person's Tax Credit Statistics. Geographical analyses". Estimates based on sample data appear for earlier quarters back to May 2000 in "Working Families' Tax Credit Statistics. Quarterly Enquiry". All these documents are available on the Inland Revenue web site, inlandrevenue.gov.uk, under "National Statistics".

  National estimates of WFTC take up rates appear in "Working Families' Tax Credit. Estimates of Take-up rates in 2000–01", which can be found on the Inland Revenue web site under "National Statistics". No estimates are available at local authority level. I regret that the other figures requested are not available, or not
  602W
  available at the local authority level. Statistics on awards of the Child and Working Tax Credits will be published in August.

  UK Tax Regime
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what amendments to the draft EU constitution he will propose in order to protect the rights of the UK Government to determine its own tax regime. [117081]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Any changes to the provisions of the existing EU Treaties require the unanimous agreement of all member states. The Government have made it clear that they will not accept any changes that move away from unanimity on tax matters.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Autism
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Answer of 8 April 2003,Official Report, column 133W, on autism, what consultations have been held on, and what definition will be used for, the collection of special educational needs data from schools and Local Education Authorities. [114503]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  On 29 November draft guidance, including a draft set of descriptions of each of the types of SEN we will be collecting, was sent out to a sample of 50 schools, 30 LEAs and 50 voluntary organisations for consultation. At the same time the information was placed on the DfES Consultation website. Comments were requested on both the accuracy and the clarity of the descriptions and respondents were also asked to make general comments. The consultation closed on 6 March 2003 and 120 responses were received. Amendments to the guidance have now been made in the light of the responses received.

  A final version will be sent to LEAs and published on the DIES SEN website in the near future and a copy will be placed in the Library.

  Further Education Allowance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned on the effects of introducing further education allowance to support 19 to 30-year-olds in returning to education. [116585]

  Margaret Hodge
  My Department has not commissioned specific research on the effects of introducing a further education allowance for 19 to 30-year-olds. The key statistical and research evidence underpinning work to develop the National Skills Strategy to be launched later this month was summarised in the Evidence Paper we published on 26 March this year.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he plans to introduce to widen participation in higher education for(a) ethnic minorities, (b) people with disabilities and (c) those of working class backgrounds. [108270]

  Margaret Hodge
  We are committed to widening participation in higher education for under-represented groups. While ethnic minorities are generally well represented in higher education, we recognise that there are pockets of under-representation. The Higher Education Funding Council (HEFCE) and the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service are looking to see what data are available for monitoring purposes.

  Through amendments to the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, which came into effect in September 2002, we have made it unlawful for institutions to discriminate against disabled students in their admissions procedures. HEFCE has, since last year, included benchmark figures for participation by disabled students in its performance indicators for higher education. We have improved the assessment of Disabled Students Allowances, which are now being completed well before the start of the course, giving disabled students confidence about the level and nature of support.

  In order to widen participation to those from working class backgrounds, we need to raise levels of attainment, raise aspirations and encourage more applications. Our Aimhigher programme helps universities, colleges and schools to work together to achieve this, and we have recently announced an extension of this programme into 86 new areas over the next three years. The Office for Fair Access will encourage further improvements to widening access through access agreements, which will set out the universities' plans to offer bursaries and other financial support, encourage more applicants from less advantaged backgrounds, and which will include their own ambitions. If there are any particular issues around specific groups relating to any one university, we would expect that university to have plans to address the problem.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the funding of higher education after the introduction of top-up fees. [116586]

  Margaret Hodge
  As set out in the White Paper 'The future of higher education' (Cm 5735), the funding for higher education will increase by over 6 per cent. a year in each of the three years to 2005–06 as a result of the 2002 Spending Review settlement, so that total spending in England in that year will be almost £10 billion. The funding in 2006–07 will be determined through the forthcoming Spending Review, and will be supplemented by additional income generated through the introduction of a graduate contribution scheme for differential fees. The White Paper also made clear, however, that in order to meet the challenges of the future, universities need to develop other non-governmental funding streams. Therefore, in addition to the Graduate Contribution Scheme, the White Paper set out proposals in connection with the development of endowments and maximising donations from alumni.

  Physics
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has held with the Institution of Physics on the involvement of women in physics. [116618]

  Margaret Hodge
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not held any discussions with the Institute of Physics on the involvement of women in physics. However officials of the Department have met with the Institute to discuss this issue and the Institute's new programme to support women in physics, with a view to working together in this area.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his Written Ministerial Statement of 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 13WS, on school budgets, what plans he has to issue guidance to local education authorities in connection with those obligations (a) to meet requirements under health and safety legislation and (b) to meet Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2000 requirements in respect of (i) the minimum education of children and (ii) to meet SENDA requirements in respect of physical access to premises. [115180]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have no plans to issue further guidance in these areas.

  My Department has worked closely with LEAs to ensure that they are aware of their health and safety responsibilities, including giving talks to LEA staff, sending the publication "Health & Safety: Responsibilities and Powers" to all LEAs and schools in England in December 2001 and more recently creating a health and safety section on the Teachernet website http://www.teachernet. gov.uk/healthandsafety.

  There is a requirement for schools to meet for a minimum of 380 half day sessions per year and recommended guidelines on the amount of teaching time have been published as follows:
  17.30–20 hours for pupils at Key Stage 1 (Recommended by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority)
  19.10–22.30 hours for pupils at Key Stage 2 (Recommended by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority)
  21.30 hours for pupils at Key Stage 3 (Recommended by the Key State 3 National Strategy)
  24 hours for pupils at Key Stage 4 (DfES Circular 7/90)
  The guidance for Key Stages 1 and 2 can be found on the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority's website: http://www.qca.org.uk/ca/5–14/learnmg_prim curr.asp
  The Key Stage 3 guidelines can be found at: http://www. standards. dfes. gov. uk/keystage3/publications

  In July 2002 my Department issued guidance for local education authorities and schools on carrying out their disability planning duties under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 (as amended by the SEN and Disability Act 2001). These duties require them to plan strategically to increase access to schools for disabled pupils over time. The duty covers physical access to premises, access to information in alternative formats, and access to the curriculum. The guidance—"Accessible Schools—Planning to increase access to schools for disabled pupils" can be found at http:// www.dfes.gov.uk/sen

  School Exclusions
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school children are

  Number of permanent exclusions by type of school 2001–02 (provisional estimates) 1by local education authority area in London

  Primary2

  Secondary2

  Special3

  Total

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population4

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population4

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population4

  Number of permanent exclusions

  Percentage of the school population4

  England

  1,451

  0.03

  7,741

  0.24

  343

  0.36

  9,535

  0.12

  London

  205

  0.03

  1,196

  0.29

  55

  0.45

  1,456

  0.14

  Inner London

  80

  0.03

  386

  0.30

  23

  0.50

  489

  0.13

  Camden

  2

  0.02

  24

  0.22

  2

  0.68

  28

  0.12

  City of London

  0

  0.00

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  5—

  Hackney

  9

  0.05

  21

  0.26

  3

  0.80

  33

  0.12

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  0.02

  34

  0.47

  1

  0.32

  37

  0.22

  Haringey

  5

  0.02

  34

  0.47

  1

  0.32

  37

  0.22

  Haringey

  5

  0.02

  27

  0.24

  0

  0.00

  32

  0.09

  Islington

  0

  0.00

  12

  0.16

  0

  0.00

  12

  0.05

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3

  0.04

  9

  0.25

  1

  1.32

  13

  0.12

  Lambeth

  9

  0.05

  29

  0.40

  0

  0.00

  38

  0.14

  Lewisham

  13

  0.06

  51

  0.44

  2

  0.38

  66

  0.19

  Newham

  12

  0.04

  37

  0.21

  1

  1.39

  50

  0.10

  Southwark

  14

  0.06

  31

  0.29

  5

  1.05

  50

  0.14

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  0.00

  36

  0.26

  1

  0.25

  38

  0.10

  Wandsworth

  9

  0.05

  49

  0.49

  7

  0.96

  65

  0.23

  Westminster

  1

  0.01

  26

  0.32

  0

  0.00

  27

  0.14

  Outer London

  125

  0.03

  810

  0.29

  32

  0.43

  967

  0.14

  Barking and Dagenham

  10

  0.05

  14

  0.12

  0

  0.00

  24

  0.08

  Barnet

  3

  0.01

  51

  0.24

  0

  0.00

  54

  0.11

  Bexley

  11

  0.05

  45

  0.25

  4

  1.00

  60

  0.15

  Brent

  3

  0.01

  34

  0.23

  1

  0.25

  38

  0.10

  Bromley

  6

  0.02

  79

  0.37

  0

  0.00

  85

  0.18

  Croydon

  25

  0.08

  110

  0.62

  10

  1.79

  145

  0.29

  Baling

  4

  0.01

  59

  0.38

  1

  0.21

  64

  0.15

  Enfield

  6

  0.02

  64

  0.31

  2

  0.39

  72

  0.15

  Greenwich

  18

  0.09

  31

  0.22

  2

  0.35

  51

  0.14

  Harrow

  5

  0.03

  63

  0.70

  0

  0.00

  68

  0.24

  Havering

  2

  0.01

  42

  0.26

  1

  0.42

  45

  0.12

  Hillingdon

  8

  0.03

  35

  0.21

  0

  0.00

  43

  0.10

  Hounslow

  7

  0.04

  50

  0.31

  2

  0.52

  59

  0.16

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  0.01

  2

  0.02

  0

  0.00

  3

  0.01

  Merton

  3

  0.02

  18

  0.24

  2

  0.78

  23

  0.10

  Redbridge

  2

  0.01

  30

  0.16

  0

  0.00

  32

  0.07

  Richmond upon Thames

  3

  0.02

  25

  0.34

  3

  1.99

  31

  0.16

  Sutton

  1

  0.01

  34

  0.23

  0

  0.00

  35

  0.12

  Waltham Forest

  7

  0.03

  24

  0.18

  4

  0.59

  35

  0.10

  1 19 LEAs in England have yet to confirm the data for their schools. Based on data as at 29 May 2003.

  2 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  3 Includes maintained and non-maintained special schools.

  4 The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) pupils in primary, secondary and special schools, excluding dually registered pupils in special schools in January 2002.

  5 Not applicable (no schools of this type)

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many appeals against fixed term exclusions from secondary schools have been made in the last 12 months; [116939]

  (2) how many fixed term exclusions have been issued in secondary schools in the last 12 months. [116940]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Information on fixed term exclusions and associated appeals is not collected centrally.

  Following a review of data collected on exclusions, the Department is collecting information from Local Education Authorities on both fixed term and permanent exclusions on a termly basis from this summer.
  606W
  permanently excluded from schools in the Greater London area. [116707]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is shown in the table

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how many excluded children have received education through(a) pupil referral units, (b) home tuition, (c) emotional and behavioural disorder day units, (d) emotional and behavioural disorder residential units and (e) other provision for excluded children in each year since 1995; [116632]

  (2) how many children have been excluded from mainstream education in each year since 1995. [116634]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]Information on the provision made for permanently excluded pupils was first collected in March 2001 via the Education of Permanently Excluded Pupils (EPEP) Survey and was updated in September 2001. The available figures are shown in the table.
  607W
  All local education authorities were committed to offering a full timetable to permanently excluded pupils from September 2002. In targeted schools in 34 local authorities, provision is also being made for those excluded on a temporary basis. These arrangements will be extended to a further 27 local authorities in the coming year.

  Distribution of mode of provision of education for excluded pupils—England, March and September 2001

  Provision of permanently excluded pupils

  March 20011

  September 20012

  Number of excluded pupils by mode of provision

  Percentage distribution of mode of provision

  Number of excluded pupils by mode of provision

  Percentage distribution of mode of provision

  PRU

  4,176

  41.0

  3,793

  47.6

  Home tuition

  1,706

  16.8

  1,124

  14.1

  Voluntary Sector

  51

  0.5

  95

  1.2

  FE college

  626

  6.2

  673

  8.4

  Work related

  212

  2.1

  270

  3.4

  Mixed provision

  1,248

  12.3

  525

  6.6

  Other provision

  901

  8.9

  660

  8.3

  No provision

  1,254

  12.3

  830

  10.4

  Total

  10,174

  100.0

  7,970

  100.0

  1 Based on replies from 144 out of 150 local education authorities

  2 Based on replies from 146 out of 150 local education authorities

  Source:

  EPEP Survey.

  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of excluded children in pupil referral units were regularly truanting in each year since 1995. [116633]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Information on pupil truancy is derived from Absence in Schools Survey returns made each year by schools to the Department. This survey is not completed by Pupil Referral Units.

  Sixth Forms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government's strategy is towards small school sixth forms. [117675]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We have said many times in the House that we have no intention of closing small school sixth forms where they are successful and popular and meet the needs of their communities. Indeed such sixth forms are an important part of the pattern of provision. They should be supported to build on their success where, in collaboration with others, they continue to offer a range of high quality learning opportunities.

  Special Educational Needs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the percentage of children with special educational needs in each local education authority. [115025]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested has been placed in the House of Commons Library.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been received by Sefton metropolitan borough council to support 608W
  educational services for children and people with learning difficulties, disabilities and other special educational needs in the current financial year. [116279]

  Mr. Miliband
  The calculation of Sefton MBC's Education Formula Spending Share (FSS) takes account of the estimated number of children between the ages of 3 and 16 with high levels of educational need. Sefton's overall FSS determines the general funding received through the authority through Revenue Support Grant. The authority decides how much of this funding is used to support spending on educational services for children and people with learning difficulties, disabilities and other special educational needs—it is not possible to identify a separate funding allocation for these services.

  The authority also receives funding from the Learning and Skills Council for students over the age of 16 with special educational needs. In 2003–04 this totalled £890,508. There is also support for children and people with learning difficulties through the Standards Fund: the authority's grant for SEN for 2003–04 is £519,437. There is capital funding available: the authority's School Access Initiative, to help make schools more accessible for children with disabilities, is worth £650,000 in Basic Credit Approvals for 2003–04.

  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills which(a) attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and (b) dyslexia projects received funding from the (i) Special Educational Needs Small Programme Fund and (ii) Training and Development Fund; and how much each project received. [116904]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  In the financial year 2003–04, three projects related to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder or dyslexia are receiving funding under the Special Educational Needs Small Programmes Fund. These are;£45,000 to the NSPCC for their "Attention Difficulties: Developing a whole school approach" project. Among the partners involved in this project are the North East Special Educational Needs Regional Partnership and Durham University.
  £49,966 to The Dyslexia Institute for their "Bury Local Education Authority Dyslexia Friendly Schools initiative". This work is being done alongside the Bury Local Education Authority Special Educational Needs Support Service Team.
  £50,000 to The Dyslexia Institute for their "Effective Strategies to meet Specific needs of Pupils with Specific Learning Difficulties/Dyslexia in the Classroom". This is taking place at the Roebuck Primary School in Stevenage, Hertfordshire and the consortium includes the Regional Partnership and the Local Education Authority.

  Funding for the Training and Development Fund was available in financial year 2002–03. £81,400 was awarded to the Institute of Education, Manchester Metropolitan University, for their project 'Raising the Achievement of Dyslexia Pupils: Dyslexia Friendly Teaching'. Among its partnership organisations was the British Dyslexia Association.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many higher education students in Suffolk pay all or part of the annual fee charged for university tuition. [114390]
  609W
  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]Student support data on the levels of contribution to tuition are collected from local education authorities (LEAs) through a voluntary survey. However, due to poor response rates and quality of responses from a number of LEAs, the data are only robust enough to be published at the national level.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much was raised through tuition fees from students in the London Borough of Havering in(a) 1998, (b) 1999, (c) 2000, (d) 2001 and (e) 2002; [115341]

  (2) how many students from the London Borough of Havering are exempt from tuition fees. [115345]

  Margaret Hodge
  Student support data on the levels of contribution to tuition are collected from local education authorities (LEAs) through a voluntary survey. However, due to poor response rates and quality of responses from a number of LEAs, the data are only robust enough to be published at the national level.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Sports Tourism
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the value was of sports tourism to the UK economy in each of the previous five years. [116998]

  Dr. Howells
  The Office for National Statistics collected statistics on sports tourism in 2001 and 2002. Figures for 2001 show that 650,000 overseas visitors to the UK either watched a sporting event or participated in amateur sport as the main purpose of their visit, and they spent an estimated £369 million. Figures for 2002 will be available in August.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the actions her 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 she has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if she will make a statement. [117700]

  Dr. Howells
  The DCMS has in place an asbestos register in respect of buildings on the estate. The audit and assessment of any asbestos still in situ in buildings is a three yearly occurrence in addition to any risk assessment that would he necessary prior to any works which might disturb asbestos in the structure of the buildings. The same applies to the Royal Parks Agency. Non-departmental public bodies, of which the Department has 60, are autonomous in respect of management of their estate, much of which is minority leased holdings in commercial buildings.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what targets her Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how she intends to achieve these targets. [116645]
  610W
  Dr. Howells
  Details of environmental policies and targets are posted on the Department's website. In common with all Government Departments DCMS has an interim target of 1 per cent. reduction in (weather-corrected) CO2 emissions from the estate, relative to a base year of 1999–2000. New cross-government targets will be agreed, based on benchmark ing the performance of individual buildings, where possible by the end of this year. An established Environmental Management System will enable the Department to identify best options and methods for seeking a continual improvement (reduction) in energy use and emissions.

  Protection of Cultural Property
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans the Government has to ratify the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the event of armed conflict; and if she will make a statement. [116321]

  Tessa Jowell
  We remain fully committed to the protection of cultural property in time of armed conflict in accordance with international law and are currently giving active consideration, with other interested departments, to the ratification of the 1954 Hague Convention.

  Radio Stations
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what Government assistance is available to the BBC to cover the whole of the Bridgwater constituency by local radio. [115614]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for the BBC. The BBC is funded by the licence fee and the Governors are responsible for ensuring that the funds are spent in the public interest. I understand that the BBC currently has a local FM service across parts of Somerset in the form of BBC Radio Bristol, and the Corporation has no plans for further FM developments in this area.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will grant the BBC an FM frequency in Somerset. [115615]

  Dr. Howells
  This is a matter for the BBC. FM spectrum is a scarce resource and it is for the BBC to determine how their spectrum allocation is planned to deliver local radio services. I understand that the BBC currently has a local FM service across parts of Somerset in the form of BBC Radio Bristol, and the Corporation has no plans for further FM developments in this area.

  S4C
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the departmental budget allocations were for the S4C Channel each year since 1995; and if she will make a statement. [117744]

  Dr. Howells
  S4C's statutory grant entitlement is for the calendar year but the Department for Culture, Media and Sport operates on an April to March financial year. The Department's budget allocations for the relevant period may therefore differ from the Welsh Authority's grant entitlement for the corresponding calendar year, but were as follows.
  611W

  £ millions

  Departmental allocation

  1995–96

  68.486

  1996–97

  72.310

  1997–981

  18.414

  1998–99

  75.127

  1999–2000

  75.127

  2000–01

  75.127

  2001–02

  76.817

  2002–03

  80.217

  2003–04

  85.217

  1 From January 1998, under the new funding formula introduced by the Broadcasting Act 1996 S4C's annual grant ceased to be paid in full in January each year and became payable in instalments. The budget alloction for 1997–98 therefore covered the period January to March 1998 only.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Minister of State. Department for International Development if she will make a statement on the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan. [117163]

  Hilary Benn
  The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan has improved over the last year. This winter passed without serious problems. But poverty is endemic and vulnerable sections of the population (WFP estimates about 5.9 million people out of a population of approximately 25 million) continue to require direct assistance.

  The security situation in the South is hampering assessment missions as well as food distributions causing some NGOs to suspend or curtail their programmes. In cities, programmes are operating normally but restrictions placed on travel because of security risks have resulted in many NGOs scaling down or postponing operations until the situation improves.

  In the North East there have been floods because of heavy rain and UNHCR and WFP are providing temporary accommodation and food.

  More than 100,000 Afghan refugees have returned home so far this year, primarily from Pakistan (65,000) and Iran (35,000), and within Afghanistan, more than 25,000 internally displaced people have gone home this year. DFID will continue to support UN agencies to help meet essential needs of refugees and returnees.

  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how much money was promised by the UK Government to Afghanistan in aid contributions at the Tokyo Summit. [117912]

  Hilary Benn
  At the Ministerial Conference in Tokyo (January 2002), we provided £75 million including £12.7 million to help clear Afghanistan's arrears to the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. For this financial year, DFID is willing to increase our Tokyo commitment of £40 million per year to £50 million, linked to progress on civil service reform. The joint FCO-DFID-MOD Global Conflict Prevention Pool 612W
  will provide a further £16.8 million this year, in addition, DFID will contribute an estimated £40 million through multilateral channels (EC, IDA).

  Aid
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what funds were available through the Department for aid expressed as a percentage of GDP in each of the last three years for which figures are available. [117877]

  Hilary Benn
  The ratio of total aid to Gross National Income (GNI), which is the statistic normally used to measure aid performance, has been as follows over the last three years:

  percentage

  2000

  2001

  2002 (provisional)

  0.32

  0.32

  0.30

  An average of around 90 per cent. of this aid is provided through DFID. The low figure in 2002 was due to the lack of any contribution to IDA in that year, caused by delay in completing negotiation and ratification of the thirteenth replenishment.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what targets the Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [116653]

  Hilary Benn
  All Departments currently have an interim target of 1 per cent. per annum a reductions in (weather-corrected) CO2 emissions from their estate, relative to the base-year 1999–2000. DEFRA will agree new targets for 2010, based on benchmarking the performance of individual buildings where possible, by the end of the year. In the meantime, we are monitoring consumption figures on a regular basis and compiling the necessary baseline data in order to carry out an Energy Performance Benchmarking exercise in accordance with DETR guidelines.

  The refurbishment of our main London building, which took place in 2001, and the works currently under way at our East Kilbride office, include a wide range of energy efficiency measures. The design for the latest works on our East Kilbride building have received an "excellent" rating under the Building Research Establishment Environmental Assessment Methodology (BREEAM) rating system. We have also commenced testing to establish the feasibility of installing a wind turbine.

  Energy Efficiency is now a significant feature of the new contracts with our two respective specialist building maintenance contractors, with regular meetings being held to consider, inter alia, implementation of additional savings measures.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what
  613W
  efforts are being taken to ensure that Clause 20 of UN Security Council Resolution 1483 can be met by the interim Iraqi administration. [117028]

  Hilary Benn
  Discussions are taking place among Coalition partners on the establishment of the Development Fund for Iraq within the terms set out in UNSCR 1483.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development which Government Department will be responsible for the administration of the Oil For Food programme when the US and UK Governments take over responsibility for the programme as set out in UN Security Council Resolution 1483. [117029]

  Hilary Benn
  The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) will take over responsibility for activities currently carried out under Oil For Food programme. Responsibility for the Government's policy towards the CPA is co-ordinated among several Whitehall Departments, including DFID.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if his Department will work with the United Nations to help draw up a nationwide, cross-sectoral needs assessment in Iraq. [117031]

  Hilary Benn
  World Bank and International Monetary Fund economic and social needs assessments will begin in the coming weeks, in co-ordination with work already being undertaken by the UN and Coalition Provisional Authority. DFID's future engagement in Iraq will reflect the needs highlighted in these assessments.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether an assessment has been made of the damage caused to Iraq's infrastructure by recent military action in Iraq. [117035]

  Hilary Benn
  We are not aware of any comprehensive assessment of the damage done to infrastructure in Iraq as a direct result of military action. Many of the current problems relating to infrastructure are a result of its poor state of repair from years of neglect before the conflict, and subsequent acts of sabotage and looting.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether the WFP food lifts into Iraq will be extended to September. [117040]

  Hilary Benn
  Under the World Food Programme's (WFP) current plans, their food lifts will continue to the end of September. DFID has provided £33 million to assist WFP with their work in Iraq.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether courts are operating in (a) Baghdad and (b) Basra. [117041]

  Hilary Benn
  Two courts are operating in Baghdad. Courts have been operating in Basra since 1 June.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether the Department has a plan for repairs and restoration of the electricity network in Iraq. [117042]
  614W
  Hilary Benn
  The Coalition Provision Authority is working with local Iraqi municipalities, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) and other humanitarian agencies to draw up plans for the rehabilitation of the electricity sector in Iraq.

  DFID has provided £7 million to UNDP to carry out emergency repairs lo the electricity sector in the centre and south of Iraq. DFID has committed £16.5 million to the International Committee of the Red Cross for their work in Iraq, which also includes electricity infrastructure repair.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what efforts there will be in Iraq to offer retraining to doctors. [117043]

  Hilary Benn
  Current efforts to retrain health staff in Iraq are focused on specific priority issues, such as disease surveillance for cholera in Basra. The World Health Organisation (WHO) has also provided 32 emergency library kits to update the reference resources of senior Iraqi Ministry of Health staff in all governorates. In the longer term, WHO is planning to support updated training for Iraqi doctors. DFID has provided £6 million to WHO for their work in Iraq.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what efforts are being made to restore public health laboratories in Iraq. [117044]

  Hilary Benn
  The World Health Organisation (WHO) is carrying out emergency repairs, and restocking equipment and supplies in strategically important laboratories in Iraq, including the Central Public Health Laboratories in Baghdad and Basra.

  WHO and other humanitarian agencies have assessed other laboratory facilities, particularly in urban hospitals, and judge their overall capacity to be reasonable, although they are only basically equipped. WHO is providing materials to enable these laboratories to perform priority tests. DFID has provided £6 million to support WHO'S work in the Iraq crisis.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether the Department has made an assessment of whether the interim regime in Iraq will be able to take over the food distribution network when the WFP control of the network ends in five months. [117045]

  Hilary Benn
  The Iraqi Ministry of Trade is responsible for the public distribution system for food rations, which it has operated since the start of the Oil for Food Programme (OFF) in 1996. On 1 June 2003 Ministry of Trade began distributing food brought into Iraq by the World Food Programme (WFP). Food may continue to be supplied to Iraq, if necessary, by WFP after the end of the OFF.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what agency will deal with property disputes caused by the return of internally displaced persons in Iraq. [117047]
  615W
  Hilary Benn
  The Coalition Provision Authority, in conjunction with the International Organisation of Migration, is expected to manage issues relating to the return of internally displaced persons in Iraq.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will discuss with the UN Secretary General the possibility of the UNHCR controlling the return of internally displaced persons in Iraq. [117048]

  Hilary Benn
  The UN Office of Project Services (UNOPS) reports that the majority of recently displaced people have returned to their homes in the north of the country. UNOPS is currently surveying groups displaced prior to the conflict.

  In addition, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), working with the Coalition Provisional Authority, is planning for the return of refugees from outside the country. DFID has provided £1.75 million to UNHCR since the start of the conflict to assist with their work in Iraq and neighbouring countries.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what efforts are being taken to pay school teachers in Iraq and to ensure that they receive regular payments. [117049]

  Hilary Benn
  The Coalition Provisional Authority has begun to pay salaries to 1.4 million civil servants, including teachers. Payments started on 24 May in Baghdad. Teachers will receive 100,000 Iraqi dinars a month, four times what they earned under the previous regime.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what work the Department is doing with UNICEF to assess educational needs in Iraq. [17050]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has provided £9 million to support UNICEF's work in Iraq, primarily for emergency activities, routine immunisation and mines awareness. Education will be included in the social and economic needs assessments soon to be carried out by the World bank, IMF and UN.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development when refuse collection services will be re-established in(a) Baghdad and (b) Basra. [117054]

  Hilary Benn
  The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has assisted in the removal of almost a third of the estimated 300,000 cubic metres of backlogged rubbish from Baghdad. The CPA is also planning emergency repairs to Baghdad's refuse centres. It hopes to resume regular municipal refuse collections shortly.

  A refuse collection service is being co-ordinated in Basra between Coalition authorities and the municipal government.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what work is being done to ensure there is an adequate supply of vaccines in Baghdad when the three month supply recently ordered by UNICEF is used. [117055]
  616W
  Hilary Benn
  The Oil for Food Programme, which currently has responsibility for the provision of medical supplies, will continue to supply vaccines under the guidance of UNICEF until 21 November 2003. Thereafter, the Coalition Provisional Authority will be responsible for ensuring the continued supply of vaccines, which may be financed through the Development Fund for Iraq, other national financing mechanisms as they evolve, or contributions from donors.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what her Department is doing to restore the medical distribution network in Iraq. [117056]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is supporting the Iraqi Ministry of Health, through the World Health Organisation (WHO) and other humanitarian agencies, to undertake the repair and maintenance of damaged warehouse facilities and to meet temporarily the running costs of the Ministry of Health's procurement and distribution agency. DFID has provided £6 million to WHO for their work in the current Iraq crisis.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether the Department has drawn up a plan to deal with the reintegration of Iraqi refugees into Iraq. [117058]

  Hilary Benn
  The UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) has drawn up a repatriation plan for Iraqi refugees wishing to return to Iraq. UNHCR is discussing its implementation with the Coalition Provision Authority and the governments of other countries in the region. DFID provided £1.75 million to UNHCR for preparedness work in the Iraq crisis, and will consider further funding requests as they arise.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what efforts her Department is making to help UNICEF reactivate the Targeted Nutrition Programme in Iraq. [117060]

  Hilary Benn
  The Targeted Nutrition Programme in Iraq previously worked through community child care units located within primary health centres. UNICEF has made assessments of these units, and has delivered 10,000 cartons of high protein biscuits to those that are functioning in Baghdad. DFID has provided £9 million to support UNICEF's work in Iraq.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development how many water system specialists the UK has sent to help in the restoration of water services in Iraq. [117062]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's contribution towards the restoration of water supplies in Iraq is being channelled through our support to humanitarian agencies on the ground. £4 million has been allocated specifically for water and sanitation work to UNICEF and CARE. One DFID infrastructure expert is working with the Coalition Provisional Authority on co-ordination with the humanitarian agencies. Further secondments may be made in the coming weeks subject to need.
  617W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether a representative from his Department will be attending the weekly meetings between the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq and NGOs in the region. [117064]

  Hilary Benn
  A DFID representative will be attending weekly meetings between the UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq and NGO's in the region.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether he plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in his Department. [117453]

  Hilary Benn
  A partnership agreement was signed between Department for International Development management and representatives of the trade unions (Public and Commercial Services Union and the Association of First Division Civil Servants) on 24 October 2002.

  St. Helena
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on progress in the construction of an airstrip on St Helena. [117879]

  Hilary Benn
  As a result of talks held last September in St Helena, an invitation to the private sector seeking innovative proposals for the development of air access was launched by the St Helena Government on 7 April 2003. Details of this invitation can be found at www.giclimited.com. In response, various parties have given notification of intent to submit outline proposals by the invitation deadline of 25 July.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Equal Pay
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Minister for Women what evaluation she has made of the progress by United Kingdom employers in reducing the pay gap between men and women employees who are carrying out work of equal value; and what further measures she will take to remove the pay gap altogether. [113854]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's gender pay gap figures are based on earnings figures from the New Earnings Survey (NES) published annually by the ONS. The mean full-time pay gap as at April 2002 is 18.9 per cent. When median earnings are used it shows that in fact the full-time pay gap has narrowed over the last year, from 15.4 per cent. in April 2001 to 14.7 per cent. in April 2002—a fall of 0.7 percentage point.

  The Government also welcomes voluntary benchmarking initiatives, such as that conducted by Opportunity Now, as they provide additional information on the progress of employers in reducing the pay gap. Opportunity Now Benchmarking 2003 identified that increasing numbers of employers have started work on equal pay reviews: 41 per cent. reported that reviews have just been introduced or that new work is being developed.
  618W
  This is similar to the recent EOC survey finding that 1/3rd of large companies had conducted pay reviews or were developing new work. Opportunity Now found that the number doing nothing on equal pay has decreased from 31 per cent. last year to 23 per cent.

  The Government are working to reduce the gender pay gap in other ways:
  The equal pay questionnaire (which came into effect on 6 April)
  The Employment Act 2002 (including a right for parents to request flexible working and extended paid maternity leave and increased maternity pay)
  Working with the EOC to promote equal pay reviews
  Providing trade unions with additional funding for training representatives in equal pay issues
  Requiring the Civil Service to undertake pay reviews.

  Flexible Working
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Minister for Women what steps she is taking to promote flexible working for women. [111037]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government's Work-Life Balance Campaign actively encourages businesses to follow best practice and offer flexible working opportunities. The Government recently launched the 5th round of the Work Life Balance Challenge Fund, inviting employers to apply by 31 July 2003 for consultancy support to introduce new working arrangements, including flexible working, within their organisations.

  On 6 April 2003 the Government introduced a new flexible working law providing mothers and fathers of children under six or disabled children under 18 with the right to apply for flexible working, and placing a duty on employers to consider such requests seriously.

  To promote the new right, the Government launched awareness-raising activity last Autumn. We ran a six-week advertising campaign in the national press prior to the new law coming into force, and we briefed representatives of the consumer and life-style media so that they could include articles in their publications, such as parenting magazines.

  We have also produced extensive guidance both on the internet at www.dti.gov.uk/workingparents and in hard copy. This includes a set of forms based on best-practice, case studies and user-friendly "How to …" tips. Guidance is also available in an interactive form at www.tiger.gov.uk and helpline support is being provided by AC AS on 08457 474747.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Broadband
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on(a) money allocated towards and (b) progress made in implementation of broadband in the Boston and Skegness areas. [116867]

  Mr. Timms
  BT has enabled the Boston exchange for ADSL and Skegness has nearly reached its trigger level of 500 expressions of interest, with 462 registrations to date according to BT's broadband website.
  619W
  Lincolnshire County Council is providing matched funding under the 'Lincolnshire Broadband Initiative' to draw down £64 million of European Regional Development Objective 2 funding to help key economic development projects. Broadband and Information Communication Technology (ICT) are identified by the County Council as important drivers for the county's economy.

  We provided the East Midlands Regional Development Agency (EMDA) £2.09 million during 2001–03, from the £30 million broadband fund, to further broadband throughout the region. EMDA have contributed from this to the Remote Area Broadband Inclusion Trials (RABBIT) programme, to trial alternative broadband internet access to small businesses in rural areas using wireless and satellite. 43 Small Medium Enterprises (SMEs) within Lincolnshire are benefiting, although I do not have a separate figure for those which are in the Boston and Skegness areas.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated(a) number of households and (b) percentage of population is in East Sussex who have access to broadband; and if she will place a map of coverage in the Library. [117358]

  Mr. Timms
  This information is not currently held centrally.

  Officials are talking to the holders of the underlying data to develop a map of broadband coverage and to explore how the data might be made publicly available.

  Arms Exports
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regular contact her Department has with Interpol with regard to the licensing of arms deals. [117015]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the basis for her policy on making the US exports controls on transportation, freight forwarding and financing of arms deals effective in the UK. [117016]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government have no plans to make US export controls on transportation, freight forwarding and financing of arms deals effective in the UK. The Government outlined their own proposals, in the consultation document on draft secondary legislation, to control such activities in relation to the trade in controlled goods to embargoed destinations and equipment used in torture or long-range missiles to any destination.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department makes checks before granting arms export licences with other international export licensing agencies on whether those applying for arms licences have been banned from applying for licences in other jurisdictions. [117017]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government do not comment on their internal procedures relating to the assessment of export licence applications to avoid giving disreputable exporters information which they might exploit.
  620W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 8 April 2003,Official Report, column 165W, if she will change the provisions for the maximum penalty so that fines are commensurate with a company's market capitalisation. [117066]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer on 8 April 2003,Official Report, column 165W.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her assessment is of the economic impact of the loss of jobs within the UK from the transfer of administration of call centre operations from the UK to other countries where employment costs are lower. [117134]

  Mr. Timms
  No such assessment has been made.

  Although the UK market is maturing and, in common with other European markets, growth is slowing, the UK has by far the greatest number of call centre operations within Europe. There are conflicting predictions on future UK growth prospects. Mitial Research Limited predict that employment in call centres will decline from more than 300,000 today to 220,000 by 2005. The industry analysts, Datamonitor, predicts that employment in call centres will continue to grow. Datamonitor1 estimates that there are currently 5,700 call centres in The UK, containing 384,000 agent positions. By 2007 it predicts that there will be 6,900 call centres in The UK, containing 470,000 agent positions.
  1Datamonitor (2002) Call Centers in EMEA to 2007 Reference Code: DMTC0852

  Company Auditors
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many auditors have been presented by her Department as a result of criticisms by her Department's inspectors in the last 10 years. [114909]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In relation to criticisms in reports of investigations by inspectors under sections 431, 432 and 442 of the Companies Act 1985 published since 1993, there have been six cases where auditors were specifically criticised by the inspectors:

  Publication date

  Astra Holding plc

  17 June 1993

  The Bestwood plc/Atlanta Fund Managers Ltd.

  20 January 1994

  Atlantic Computers plc/Atlantic Computer Systems plc

  21 July 1997

  James Ferguson Holdings plc/Barlow Clowes Gilt Managers Ltd.

  6 July 1995

  Chancery plc

  17 December 1998

  Mirror Group Newspapers plc

  30 March 2001

  None of the auditors concerned were prosecuted by the Department but there have been a number of disciplinary actions by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales ("ICAEW") and the Accounts' Joint Disciplinary Scheme ("JDS") as regards auditors and accountant directors.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Laws
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her latest estimate is of her Department's
  621W
  direct financial support for the construction industry in (a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05; and if she will make a statement. [115593]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have nothing further to add to the answer I gave the hon. Member on 20 February 2003,Official Report, column 67W.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when she will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of 18 November 2002 and 3 February 2003 concerning his constituent, Mr. Robert Jones; and if she will make a statement on the delay in replying. [117663]

  Ms Hewitt
  My hon. Friend the Minister of State for Energy and Construction, replied to the hon. Member's letter of 18 November 2002 on 20 December 2002.

  I have sent a copy of the letter to the hon. Member's office in the House.

  My Department have no record of a further letter of 3 February 2003. If this letter still requires a response please send a copy to my office and I will ensure that it is dealt with as soon as possible.

  Electronics Design Programme
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much funding has been allocated to

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003 (to May)

  Total

  Companies making inquiries about the programme

  1,481

  1,200

  1,239

  915

  242

  5,077

  Companies receiving pre-project advice from local Support Centres

  406

  501

  577

  397

  130

  2,011

  Companies who started projects with local Support Centres

  48

  107

  145

  102

  47

  449

  The Programme has been in operation since 1999 and was extended for two years beyond its original plan. It will cease at the end of 2003. A recent survey of a number of companies who have used the Programme showed that their revenues grew by 163 per cent., average profit grew by 141 per cent., productivity grew by 150 per cent., employment grew by 30 per cent. and revenue from new products rose to 48 per cent. of total. Some of the local Support Centres are in discussions with other agencies including the Manufacturing Advisory Service about how to exploit the valuable infrastructure that this Programme has created.

  Following the Department's review of Business Support and in response to business concerns, the Department is replacing the large number of existing schemes with fewer, broader and more flexible products concentrating on key drivers of productivity.

  Export Controls
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what co-operation the DTI department responsible for export controls has with other(a) European and (b) North American countries. [117018]
  622W
  the Electronics Design Programme in each year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [117276]

  Mr. Timms
  Funding allocated to the Electronics Design Programme since its inception is as in the following table.

  £000

  1999–2000

  1,694

  2000–01

  1,346

  2001–02

  1,067

  2002–03

  1,285

  2003–041

  692

  Total

  6,084

  1 To May 2003

  I would refer the hon. Member to the statement contained in Parliamentary Question No. 117279 answered today.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many small businesses have received assistance from the Electronics Design Programme in each year for which figures are available; and if she will make a statement. [117279]

  Mr. Timms
  The management statistics for the Electronics Design Programme (provided by the Support Centres) show the following results for each year that the Programme has been in operation:

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's fully co-operates with export licensing authorities in European and North American countries primarily through multilateral fora like the European Union and the international non-proliferation regimes.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what formal mechanisms there are for maintaining contact between the DTI department responsible for export control and the security services. [117020]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Department of Trade and Industry's Export Control Organisation does not comment on any contacts with the security services.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 463W, on export licences, if she will cite the Home Office guidance to which she refers. [117070]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This Home Office guidance on extra-territorial jurisdiction can be found in the July 1996 Steering Committee Report on the Review of Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction as published by the Home Office.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) if she will place in the Library a copy of the letter sent by the ECGD to the companies who have been implicated in the bribery scandal in Lesotho in relation to the Lesotho Highlands Water Project requesting more information from them; [116776]

  (2) if she will place in the Library a copy of the replies by Balfour Beatty, Kier International and Sterling International to the ECGD's letter with regard to corruption allegations in the Lesotho Highlands Water Project. [116777]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD's Chief Executive wrote to these three companies with regard to allegations of bribery and corruption in respect of the Lesotho HWP. Two of them replied in writing to assure ECGD that they were not involved in any such activity. The third communicated the same response during a meeting. The letters will not be published under Part II Exemption 14(b) (Information Given in Confidence) of the Code of Practice of Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what sources the ECGD uses to check the track record of a company it is considering giving support to. [116778]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD uses a wide range of sources of information, tailored to reflect to nature of the risks being assessed. Much of the information is available in the public domain and includes analysis of company accounts, rating agency reports and business information from reputable information sources.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the ECGD's procedures for examining whether there is a genuine cause for concern when allegations of corruption are made include contacting investigating authorities in the home country and requiring the company to provide detailed accounts and relevant documents. [116779]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD is obliged—like any other Government Department—to report any allegation of bribery and corruption it becomes aware of about any project in which it is involved to the National Criminal Investigation Service (NCIS). NCIS are, in turn, responsible for reporting any allegation worthy of investigation to the authorities in the jurisdiction concerned.

  ECGD may also make its own inquires, depending on the nature and circumstances of the allegation. These may involve accessing various sources of information, mainly in the public domain, contact with overseas posts, relevant authorities and the exporter.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the ECGD is entitled to pass on documentation that it receives from companies to investigatory authorities. [116780]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD is obliged—like any other Government Department—to report any allegation of bribery and corruption it becomes are of about any project in which it is involved to the National Criminal 624W
  Investigation Service (NCIS). It undertakes to co-operate with any further investigation deemed necessary and if, as a result, ECGD is required by law to provide information to any investigatory authority, then ECGD will do so.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff there are in the ECGD's Internal Audit and Assurance Department. [116781]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Internal Audit service is provided by a combination of 6.5 members of staff and a contract with an external service provider.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many companies have had their books examined by the ECGD's Internal Audit and Assurance Department in the last five years. [116782]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD's Internal Audit and Assurance Division does not examine company accounts. The department has a Financial Analysis Unit, which is responsible for analysis of company accounts and assessing bank and corporate risk. This unit has assessed over 2,000 company accounts, mostly of overseas enterprises in the last five years.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many visits to exporters and how many site visits the ECGD's Internal Audit and Assurance Department made in each of the last five years. [116783]

  Ms Hewitt
  In the last five years ECGD's Internal Audit and Assurance Division has made 49 visits to exporters. The aim has been to review approximately 10 cases each year.

  This has also involved two project site visits overseas and a number of visits to manufacturing plants.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many times ECGD has refused cover because of evidence of corruption in the last five years. [116784]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD's procedures are designed to alert applicants to the seriousness of our commitment to combat bribery and corruption. There have been no occasions in the last five years where cover has had to be refused by ECGD due to allegations, suspicions or evidence of corruption.

  However, we continue to maintain our vigilance over the life of all cases.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many projects were subject to post-issue monitoring by the ECGD's Guarantee Management Branch after September 2001. [116785]

  Ms Hewitt
  Since its establishment, the Branch has carried out post issue monitoring on about 200 project cases.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of projects covered by the ECGD since September 2001 have proceeded on time and within cost. [116786]
  625W
  Ms Hewitt
  For projects where the cover has been made available since September 2001, ECGD understands all are so far proceeding within the original cost. About 8 per cent. have required a time extension.

  It is not unusual for the complex projects which ECGD supports to depart from the original timetable envisaged in the contract. Cost overruns or contractual delays are matters primarily to be resolved between the contractual parties, though ECGD may, as a result of such resolution, be asked to amend the terms of its support. ECGD does not, therefore, monitor this aspect across the whole range of its portfolio. However, ECGD does require notification of any such changes on individual cases, which might possibly affect the risk.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much agent's commission the ECGD covered on the sale of Hawk jets to South Africa; what percentage of the contract the commission represented; and where payment was made. [116787]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD's application process requires certain details of agents' commission to be disclosed to ECGD in order that it can follow its due diligence procedures. In this case such due diligence procedures were followed and no irregularities were detected. For reasons of commercial confidentiality specific details of the commission paid cannot be revealed.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of ECGD debt is interest payments. [116788]

  Ms Hewitt
  As at 31 March 2003 sovereign debt owing to ECGD under rescheduling agreements negotiated under the auspices of the Paris Club amounted to £9.6 billion. This debt portfolio consisted of £5.4 billion original debt £3.5 billion of capitalised interest and £700 million interest in arrears. Interest therefore accounts for some 44 per cent. of the total debt.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the ECGD gave investment insurance to(a) RP Godavari Power Ltd., (b) Rolls Royce Industrial Power and (c) Rolls Royce Plc for its investment in the Godavari Power Plant India. [116789]

  Ms Hewitt
  ECGD has not provided investment insurance to:

  (a) RP Godavari Power Ltd;

  (b) Rolls Royce Industrial Power; or

  (c) Rolls Royce Plc

  for its investment in the Godavari Power Plant, India.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 16W, on the ECGD's Underwriting Committee, if she will make a statement on the two high potential impact cases which have received final approval from the Underwriting Committee, including (a) the location and (b) the project type in each case. [117082]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 June 2003]The two high potential impact cases that received final approval from ECGD's Underwriting Committee referred to in my previous answer were:626W

  Project

  Location

  Type

  Nigeria LNG Plus—addition of trains 4 and 5

  Bonny Island, Nigeria

  Oil and gas

  Marlim Sul Oilfield Project— supply of flexible pipe

  Marlim Sul Oilfield, Brazil

  Oil and gas

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 15W, on the ECGD's sensitive cases mechanism, if she will make a statement on the two cases which have received final approval, including (a) the location and (b) the project type in each case. [117083]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 June 2003]The two cases that have been approved under ECGD's sensitive cases mechanism referred to in my previous answer were:

  Project

  Location

  Type

  Nigeria LNG Plus—addition of trains 4 and 5

  Bonny Island, Nigeria

  Oil and gas

  Marlim Sul Oilfield Project— supply of flexible pipe

  Marlim Sul oilfield, Brazil

  Oil and gas

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 16W, on the covenants and conditions included in the ECGD loan agreements, if she will make a statement on the three cases which were issued guarantees with covenants and conditions relating to environmental and social impacts, including (a) the location and (b) the project type in each case. [117084]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 5 June 2003]The three cases in which covenants and other conditions relating to environmental and social impacts were included referred to in my previous question were

  Project

  Location

  Type

  Nigeria LNG Plus—addition of trains 4 and 5

  Bonny Island, Nigeria

  Oil and gas

  Marlim Sul Oilfield Project— supply of flexible pipe

  Marlim Sul oilfield, Brazil

  Oil and gas

  Offshore exploration drilling

  Brazilian coast

  Oil and gas

  Freedom of Information Act
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list the electronic document and electronic record management systems which have been procured by the public authorities listed in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 for which she is responsible. [116390]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following electronic document and electronic record management systems have been procured by the public authorities for which I am responsible that are listed in Parts I to V of Schedule 1 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000:T2e records,
  TrueArc
  627W
  Not all of the bodies for which I am responsible have procured such systems.

  Home Safety
  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations she has received on a statutory duty for home safety; and if she will make a statement. [116354]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I have received several representations from organisations involved in promoting home safety including RoSPA and the Institute of Home Safety.

  Local Authorities may use their existing powers to promote safety in the home and work with the many other agencies with an interest, including Government Departments and RoSPA. I believe this is the right approach. To impose a statutory burden would result in considerable costs and could undermine the very positive work already in place without such a requirement.

  John Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the cost to public funds of home accidents, in each of the last five years. [116356]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  No direct estimate of this has been made in any of the last five years.

  Manufacturing
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on manufacturing industry in the Greater London area. [117149]

  Alan Johnson
  There are approximately 20,000 manufacturing firms in London directly employing some 300,000 people. London provides 10 per cent. of the UK's manufacturing output and £12 billion of GDP, larger than transport, distribution, education and hotel and catering. London's manufacturing productivity is 23 per cent. higher than the UK average.

  The Government's Manufacturing Strategy, published last year, identified seven key areas of activity for Government and industry that are vital for manufacturing success. We are taking action in all of those areas—for example with the setting up of the Manufacturing Advisory Service—to help British manufacturers improve productivity in very difficult global conditions.

  The London Development Agency is establishing a Production Industries Commission to develop a pan-London strategy to sustain and enhance the competitiveness of businesses in the production industries sector. The Commission, which will be business led, expects to meet for the first time in September.

  National Minimum Wage
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people aged(a) between 18 and 21 and (b) over 21 years are receiving the national minimum wage in Scotland. [117095]
  628W
  Alan Johnson
  DTI analysis of low pay data from the Office for National Statistics suggests that a total of 120,000 workers in Scotland stood to benefit from the last major uprating of the National Minimum Wage in October 2001. Around 110,000 of these workers were aged 22 and over. A breakdown for 18 to 21 year olds is not possible due to small sample size.

  Non-executive Directors
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what(a) discussions and (b) meetings her Department has had with the (i) chairman and (ii) members of the Financial Reporting Council concerning implementation of the recommendations contained in the Higgs review of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors. [116819]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The responsibility for taking forward changes to the Combined Code as a consequence of Derek Higgs' report on the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors lies with the Financial Reporting Council. One of my officials is a member of the Council and attended the Council meeting on 14 May 2003 which discussed the Higgs review, as did the secretary to the Higgs review who is also a DTI official. The implementation of the recommendations contained in the report by Derek Higgs has also come up in a number of discussions between my Department and members of the FRC, including its Chairman.

  Overtime
  Mr. Watts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what recent estimate her Department has made of the number of employees who are forced to work unpaid overtime as part of their contract of employment; [117371]

  (2) what plans she has to introduce protection for employees not wishing to work unpaid hours overtime; [117372]

  (3) what plans she has to oblige employees to pay their staff for all hours worked. [117373]

  Alan Johnson
  We have made no estimate of the numbers of employees who are required to work unpaid overtime.

  Subject to the Working Time Regulations 1998 and the national minimum wage legislation, working hours and rates of pay, including any arrangements for overtime, are a contractual matter for negotiation and agreement between employers and employees (or their representatives). If workers do not receive a contractually-agreed rate of pay they can seek redress through the employment tribunals or the civil courts. Moreover, workers must be paid at least the national minimum wage on average for the period of time over which their wages are calculated. Employees are protected against dismissal for asserting their right not to suffer unlawful deductions from wages and enforcing their right to the national minimum wage.

  Post Office
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will grant funds from the support package for the rural post office network to maintain the North Cumbria Mobile Post Office in its present form. [118085]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that arrangements are being made for a sub-postmaster to take over the staffing of the mobile post office instead of the loaned directly-employed staff. This is purely an internal operational change. The mobile office will cover the same route, at the same times and offer exactly the same level of service to customers in the same 37 communities in North Cumbria.

  Pyramid Selling
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many petitions she has received under the provisions of the Insolvency Act 2000 for the winding-up of companies for operating pyramid selling schemes; how many of these petitions included claims that the companies concerned were operating unlawful schemes under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act 1973 and its amendments, including the Trading Schemes Act 1996; and if she will make a statement. [116028]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry carries out fact-finding inquiries into the affairs of companies each year. Based upon the results of these inquiries the my right hon. Friend decides if it is in the public interest to petition the Court for an order to wind-up a company. These petitions are presented under section 124(A) of the Insolvency Act 1986. There is no information held centrally concerning the number of companies which operate pyramid selling schemes and which are wound-up by the Court. The list of companies wound-up by the Court on the petition of my right hon. Friend is published in the annual report on Companies. This document is available on the DTI website; is held by the DTI library and can be requested through the Libraries of the House or can be purchased from HMSO.

  Quadripartite Committee
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her evidence before the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April, what assessment she has made of extraterritorial controls in the US, with specific reference to enforcement; and what her reasons are for concluding that the system does not work. [116300]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to the evidence given by my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, to the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April, (Quadripartite Select Committee report (HC620) 'The Government's proposals for Secondary Legislation under the Export Control Act', section EV17Q107), which makes clear the Government's position.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her evidence before the 630W
  Quadripartite Committee on 3 April, what assessment she has made of the report issued by the Fund for Peace on US export controls. [116302]

  Nigel Griffiths
  The Government's assessment was set out in the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's evidence to the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April. (Quadripartite Select Committee report (HC620) 'The Government's proposals for Secondary Legislation under the Export Control Act', section EV17Q107).

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what correspondence she has had with the Fund for Peace following her evidence before the Quadripartite Committee on 3 April. [116303]

  Nigel Griffiths
  None.

  Renewable Energy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 12 May 2003,Official Report, column 20W, on renewable energy, if she will make a statement on the findings of the Transmission Issues Working Group report on the cost of connecting new renewable energy in Scotland. [117086]

  Mr. Wilson
  [holding answer 5 June 2003]The report concluded that the overall cost of connecting more than 6 GW of additional renewable capacity was £1.75 billion and found that the proposed reinforcements would have a positive net benefit. Over the lifetime of the asset, they would save more in constraint savings than they would cost to build. The investment required would be spread over 10 years, and the annualised cost of £100 million, spread over the UK consumer base of 23 million consumers, would be just over £4 per consumer per year.

  Street Lighting
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 7 February 2003,Official Report, column 461W, on street lighting, in what way regulation 25 of the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 facilitates competition in connections for street lighting; and if she will make a statement. [116926]

  Mr. Wilson
  Regulation 25 of the Electricity Safety, Quality and Continuity Regulations 2002 provides for connections being made to distributors' networks by persons other than the distributors' own staff or contractors. In order to protect the safety of the public and network integrity the regulation requires persons making connections to distributors' networks, for example cable jointers employed directly by local authorities, to obtain permission from the local distributor before making the connections. Disputes arising from the distributor's delay in giving or refusal to give consent for such connections on public safety or network integrity grounds may be referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for determination. In this way regulation 25 provides a safety framework to enable competition in connections to operate for street lighting.
  631W
  Ofgem is currently engaging with the industry and local authorities with a view to formally introducing competition in connections at some stage in the future.

  Term-time Working
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how the hourly rate for full-time, term-time workers is calculated; and whether it is based on a full year's employment; [116692]

  (2) whether a full-time, term-time worker is entitled to the same amount of annual leave and Bank holidays as colleagues who are paid for the full year; [116690]

  (3) whether a full-time, term-time worker in education is classified as a part-time worker, as defined in the part-time Workers' (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000. [116691]

  Alan Johnson
  Subject to the National Minimum Wage provisions, hourly rates of pay are a matter for negotiation and agreement.

  This Government believe that employers can gain significant business advantages by introducing a range of flexible working opportunities in the workplace for employees. These options might include term-time working—whether this is a suitable option will depend on the needs of individuals, work teams and above all, the needs of the business.

  All workers have an entitlement to four weeks paid holiday a year. The entitlement of workers who work less than a full year will depend on their employment contract. Time off on bank holidays has never been a statutory entitlement, any right is either determined by the employees' contract or at the discretion of the employer.

  For the purposes of the Part-time Workers (Prevention of Less Favourable Treatment) Regulations 2000, a full-time worker is a worker who works the normal full-time hours for the business and a part-time worker is a worker who works less than the normal full-time hours for the business.

  Subject to this employers are free to decide for their own purposes what constitutes a part-time or a full-time post and this applies to workers in education.

  Trade (Africa)
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans there are to increase African participation in the international standard setting bodies on trade; and if she will make a statement. [116625]

  Ms Hewitt
  The WTO recognises the particular vulnerability of the least-developed countries, which include African countries, and the special structural difficulties they face in the global economy.

  Under the 'Doha Development Agenda', agreed by all WTO members at the fourth WTO ministerial in November 2001, the WTO is committed to addressing the marginalisation of least-developed countries in international trade and improving their effective participation in the multilateral trading system.

  United Kingdom Accreditation Service
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) size and (b) value is of the conformity assessment sector in the UK with respect to (i) the number of UK Accreditation Service accredited bodies and (ii) their financial contribution to the UK economy. [116753]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I understand that there are currently 1,446 laboratories (testing and calibration); 116 certification bodies; and 130 inspection bodies accredited by the United Kingdom Accreditation Service.

  The information needed to answer the second part of the question is not available.

  United States Agency for International Development
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place a copy of(a) notes of telephone conversations and (b) copies of correspondence between her and Andrew Natsios of the United States Agency for International Development in the Library. [116268]

  Ms Hewitt
  In March I spoke on the telephone with Andrew Natsios and also wrote to him. The note of that conversation and the letter cannot be placed in the Library since they contain commercially confidential information. However I can let the hon. Member know that I used the telephone conversation and my letter to reinforce my strong wish that UK companies should be given the opportunity to play a full role in reconstruction work in Iraq. I gave Mr. Natsios details of British companies that have relevant experience and were interested in working in Iraq, together with details of companies who had direct experience of working in Iraq through the Oil for Food programme and/or before sanctions were imposed. Mr. Natsios confirmed that he would welcome the involvement of British companies and that he had already agreed to waive the normal requirement that only US companies might bid for work funded by the US Agency for International Development.

  Unsolicited Communicatoins
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many complaints have been received by the Information Commissioner's Office concerning unsolicited(a) e-mail, (b) text messages and (c) phone calls; what measures are being taken to deal with Spam communications; and if she will make a statement. [115537]

  Mr. Timms
  The most recent figures available for complaints to the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO) under the Telecommunications (Data Protection and Privacy) Regulations 1999 cover the period April 2002 to February 2003. During this time the ICO received 1,339 complaints concerning direct marketing faxes and 210 complaints concerning direct marketing by telephone including SMS text messages to mobiles. A separate figure for the latter is not available. Updated figures will be available in the ICO's Annual Report to Parliament which is expected to be presented later this month.
  633W
  Email marketing is not covered by the current Regulations (though the Data Protection Act 1998 applies where a recipient's e-mail address includes personal data such as firstname.lastname@isp.com). The ICO does not record such complaints separately.

  Regulations to implement the Directive on Privacy and Electronic Communications will introduce new rules on unsolicited commercial e-mail and SMS messages, and these Regulations are currently open for public consultation closing on 19 June 2003. The consultation paper is available in the House of Commons Library, or on the DTI website at the following URL: http://www.dti.gov.uk/industries/ecommunications/directive_on_privacy_electronic_communications_200258ec.html

  Veterinary Medicines
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the impact on recommendation 9 of the Competition Commission report Veterinary Medicines: a Report on the Supply Within the United Kingdom of Prescription-only Veterinary Medicines of the European Commission's proposal to end the general licence classification of management products. [116105]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The regulatory controls relating to the supply of veterinary medicines in the UK is the responsibility of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs is currently considering the Competition Commission's recommendations relating to the veterinary medicines regulatory system. The Government will publish its response by 10 July 2003.

  Working Conditions
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in developing management standards on policies(a) to tackle bullying and (b) to improve relationships in the workplace. [116822]

  Alan Johnson
  As a part of its priority programme on work-related stress, the Health and Safety Executive is currently working with organisations from the public and private sector to develop and pilot standards of good management practice designed to act as a yardstick to organisations in measuring their success in tackling work-related stress. One of these Standards, the Relationship Management Standard, will address the issue of bullying.

  During June 2003 the draft standards and supporting tools and guidance will be placed on the Health and Safety Executive's website to encourage all sizes and types of companies to try out this innovative approach and take action. Any feedback they provide will be incorporated when the system is formally developed for launch next year. The Draft standards can be found at: www.hse.gov.uk/stress.

WALES

  Agriculture
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales regarding agriculture in Wales. [109967]

  Peter Hain
  I have regular bi-lateral meetings with the First Minister of the National Assembly for Wales of which agriculture is one of the many subject areas we cover.

  Animal By-products
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of the impact of the Animal By-products Regulations on farming in Wales. [115061]

  Peter Hain
  None. Responsibility for this matter rests with the National Assembly for Wales and as such it would be inappropriate for me to make an assessment.

  Council of Ministers
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list each occasion Ministers from the Department have attended the Council of Ministers since 1979. [115057]

  Peter Hain
  Records prior to 1999 are not available and no Wales Office Ministers have attended the Council of Ministers since then. Since my appointment as Secretary of State for Wales, neither I nor the Parliamentary Under Secretary for Wales have attended any such meetings.

  Departmental Staff/Expenditure
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will list(a) the number of staff and (b) the annual expenditure of his Department for each year since 1997. [115056]

  Peter Hain
  I refer the hon. Member to the information at pages 23 and 26 of my Department's annual report (Cm 5928), copies of which are available in the House of Commons Library.

  Digital Broadcasting
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales pursuant to his answer of 20 May 2003,Official Report, columns 720–21W, on digital broadcasting, what the membership is of the Spectrum Planning Group: and what professional qualifications the members have. [116796]

  Peter Hain
  Membership of the Spectrum Planning Group comprises those organisations responsible for spectrum planning and co-ordination in the UK. This includes representatives from the ITC, BBC, Radiocommunications Agency, DCMS and DTI. It also includes, as sub-contractors working for the ITC, NTL and Crown Castle. The Digital Network (the digital terrestrial broadcasters) are also represented as observers.
  635W
  As membership is conferred upon organisations and not individuals, it is for those organisations to decide on the necessary qualifications of those who represent them.

  Education and Learning Wales
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has held with Secretaries in the National Assembly for Wales concerning the expenditure of Education and Learning Wales this year. [115060]

  Peter Hain
  I meet the First Minister and the Assembly Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning regularly and discuss a range of issues.

  I know that the Minister for Education and Lifelong Learning made a statement to the Assembly on 21 May welcoming the report from the Audit Committee of the National Assembly for Wales, and its investigation into ELWa's accounts to 31 March 2002.

  This is of course a matter for the Assembly but I am aware that the matter is being investigated thoroughly and action has been taken to strengthen the control framework and the risk management systems within the Council.

  Eurofighter
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many(a) direct and (b) indirect jobs have been created in (i) Wales and (ii) the UK as a consequence of the UK's involvement in the development of the Eurofighter. [113119]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]It is estimated that, in the UK, at peak production some 5,600 skilled engineering and production jobs will be created, with an estimated 16,000 jobs sustained or created in the supply chain.

  Figures are not available on a regional basis, which means I am unable to provide this information for Wales.

  Freedom of Information
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many requests for information were received by his Department in each month since 1999; and how many were responded to within the target period as outlined in his Department's annual report. [115222]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 22 May 2003]Information is requested from the Department in a number of ways, of which the principal ones are:

  Letters: for the levels of general correspondence, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 3 June, Official Report, column 311W. Of letters requiring an answer from Ministers, or from officials on their behalf: in the calendar year 2000, 50 per cent. were answered on time; in the financial year 2001–02 it was 80 per cent. and in 2002–03 it was 95 per cent.

  Subject access requests under the Data Protection Act: the first such requests were made during 2002–03 when the Department received 91 requests, all of which were answered on time.
  636W
  Requests under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information: in 2002–03 there were 11 requests of which three were answered within 20 working days; in 2001–02 there were three requests, all of which received a substantive or interim answer within 20 days; and in 2000–01 there were no requests.

  Phone calls/informal e-mails: these are answered as promptly as possible.

  Parliamentary questions: these are answered in accordance with parliamentary procedures.

  Liquefied Gas
  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales (1) whether he has issued guidelines to local authorities in Wales on the introduction of facilities for provision of retail and fleet liquefied gas; [96456]

  (2) whether he has issued guidelines to local authorities in Wales on the introduction of facilities for the provision of compressed natural gas. [96457]

  Peter Hain
  Facilities for the provision of liquefied natural gas (LNG), like all hydrocarbon fuels, are licensed by local petroleum authorities (LPAs) under the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) constitutes the Competent Authority (CA) that enforces the Control of Major Accident Hazards Regulations which apply to such facilities. Those facilities are also subject to the land-use planning system administered by local planning authorities subject to guidance issued by the National Assembly for Wales.

  Ministerial Visits
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make an assessment of the success of each official visit overseas by Ministers in his Department since 1997. [116629]

  Peter Hain
  My Department was created in July 1999. I cannot answer for the period before that date. Since its creation, each official visit overseas has had clear objectives which have informed the choice of calls made. Every visit has fulfilled its objectives.

  Outsourcing
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what incentives the Government offer to(a) encourage businesses in Wales to remain in Wales and (b) discourage the use of outsourcing outside the UK. [115055]

  Peter Hain
  Business support is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales, which funds a number of schemes to help Welsh businesses to flourish and thus encourage those businesses to remain in Wales.

  In turn, the Government ensure that Wales, and the UK as a whole, is a place where businesses wish to remain through maintaining economic stability, low inflation, high standards of education and training and flexible employment laws—enabling UK businesses to be competitive on the world stage.

  Youth Pay
  Hywel Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many young people in Wales under the age of 18 are employed for less than £3.80 per hour. [113117]

  Peter Hain
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]The New Earnings Survey (NES) provides the primary data in this area. NES figures are not grossed up to give a number of people within the total population who earn a certain amount per hour. On this basis neither a figure for Wales nor a comparable UK figure are available.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH

  United Nations
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts are being taken to ensure that Clause 22 of UN Security Council Resolution 1483 is complied with. [117065]

  Mr. Rammell
  In operative paragraph 22 of its resolution 1483 (2003), the UN Security Council decided: that petroleum, petroleum products and natural gas originating in Iraq will be immune, until title passes to the initial purchaser, from legal proceedings and will not be subject to any form of attachment, garnishment, or execution; and that proceeds and obligations arising from sales thereof, as well as the Development Fund for Iraq, will enjoy privileges and immunities equivalent to those enjoyed by the United Nations. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, in consultation with other Government Departments and the Overseas Territories, is preparing an Order in Council that will implement these measures.

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the total cost has been of the Afghan drug elimination programme. [117365]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Repeated internal conflict over the last 25 years, the collapse of legitimate economic activity and continuing insecurity in many parts of Afghanistan have all contributed to the creation of the conditions in which drug cultivation and processing have flourished. The Afghan Transitional Administration have made clear their determination to eliminate drugs from the Afghan economy and society. The UK is determined to provide assistance to help Afghanistan achieve this objective. The UK has committed £70 million over the next three years for this purpose.

  However, sustainable reductions in the Afghan drugs trade will only be achieved as progress is made on broader development and security. The UK is leading a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar-e-Sharif and has pledged £200 million of development assistance over five years (2002–07). Since development assistance helps to create the conditions in which viable alternatives to poppy cultivation can emerge, the total cost of eliminating drugs cannot be clearly separated from these broader development programmes.
  638W
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on the Afghan drug elimination programme; and if he will make a statement. [117366]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Afghan Transitional Administration adopted a national drug strategy on 19 May 2003. Its objective is to eliminate the cultivation, processing and trafficking of illegal drugs in Afghanistan within 10 years. The UK has committed £70 million over the next three years to fund activities that will contribute to achievement of this objective. Additional British embassy personnel will be posted in Afghanistan over the next few months to pursue counter-narcotics work.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what advice he received from representatives of the United Nations prior to the implementation of the policy of paying Afghan producers to reduce the cultivation of opium poppies. [117885]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK maintains regular contact with the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) on all aspects of its drugs policy. The Afghan Transitional Administration have developed a National Drug Strategy. The strategy has received the full support of both the UK and UNODC. Its objective is to eliminate the illicit drugs trade from Afghanistan within ten years. The strategy outlines a broad approach that balances the building up of Afghan drug law enforcement with the promotion of alternative livelihoods for poppy farmers.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those non-governmental organisations with which he has collaborated in seeking to reduce the cultivation of opium poppies in Afghanistan. [117886]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Tokyo Reconstruction Conference for Afghanistan in January 2002 acknowledged that measures designed to contribute to the elimination of opium poppy cultivation should be mainstreamed into all reconstruction programmes. The UK works closely with a variety of non-governmental organisations to ensure that broad development assistance helps to create the conditions in which viable alternatives to poppy cultivation can emerge. Non-governmental organisations with which the UK has collaborated include: the Aga Khan Development Network, Afghanaid, Merlin, Concern, Ockenden, Mercy Corps International, Tearfund, Central Asia Development Group, Afghans for Civil Society, Food and Agriculture Organisation and International Red Cross.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the UK street value of opium and opium derivatives from poppies cultivated in Afghanistan in each of the past three years; and what his forecast is for the current year. [117887]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC), which conducts an annual survey into the level of opium poppy production in Afghanistan, reported that the level of production in 2002 was 3,400 tonnes compared to 4,600 tonnes in 1999, 3,300 tonnes in 2000 and 185 tonnes in 2001. At
  639W
  current UK street value, this would have produced heroin worth approximately £58 billion in 2002, £78 billion in 1999, £56 billion in 2000 and £3 billion in 2001.

  The UNODC is in the process of carrying out the 2003 survey. Its results will be published in the autumn. In March 2003, the UNODC published an Opium Rapid Assessment Survey for Afghanistan. This gave an early insight into the pattern of opium poppy cultivation for the 2002–03 growing season but did not predict the level of opium poppy cultivation for 2003 or beyond. It did find however that there was a trend for farmers to cultivate opium poppy in increasingly remote and inaccessible areas.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress is being made in relation to the reduction of opium production in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [117888]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  On 19 May 2003, the Afghan Transitional Administration adopted a national drug strategy. Its objective is to eliminate the illegal drugs trade in Afghanistan within 10 years. The UK has committed £70 million over the next three years to fund activities that will contribute to achievement of this objective. Additional British embassy personnel will be posted in Afghanistan over the next few months to pursue counter-narcotics work.

  Bangladesh
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with the Government of Bangladesh regarding the situation of the Biharis in that country. [115621]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Government are concerned at the periodic reports of discrimination against minority groups in Bangladesh. The British High Commission in Dhaka frequently raises human rights concerns, including those on minorities, with the Bangladesh Government. The situation of the Biharis has featured in these discussions.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he will reply to the letters from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of 2 April and 15 May 2003 concerning his constituent, Mr. Bevan and others at King Edward VI Grammar School in Chelmsford, Essex. [117661]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I will be replying to the hon. Member's letter of 2 April 2003 and his reminder of 15 May 2003 within the next few days.

  Cyprus
  Mr. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the situation in Cyprus. [116954]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Written Ministerial Statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on 4 June,Official Report, column 22WS.
  640W
  We welcome the recent partial lifting of restrictions on freedom of movement across the Green line announced by the Turkish Cypriot authorities, and the Confidence Building Measures announced by the Government of the Republic of Cyprus. However, such measures are not a substitute for a comprehensive settlement on the basis of the UN plan.

  We warmly welcome the proposals announced by the Commission on 3 June, aimed at promoting economic development in the north of Cyprus and bringing it closer to the EU. We urge the authorities in the north of Cyprus to work with the Commission to deliver the best possible results for the Turkish Cypriots.

  DynCorp
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received of the involvement of employees of DynCorp in(a) prostitution rings and (b) sex crimes against children in Bosnia; what contracts the UK Government has with DynCorp in (i) Bosnia, (ii) Kosovo, (iii) Iraq and (iv) Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [115472]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Ministry of Defence has not received any reports on this matter. However, I am aware of media reporting on the alleged activities of some DynCorp employees.

  The Ministry of Defence does not currently have any contracts with DynCorp in Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq or Afghanistan.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what targets his Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [116655]

  Mr. Rammell
  The FCO is party to the Whitehall wide target of reducing (weather-corrected) CO2 emissions from buildings on the Government estate by 1 per cent. per annum relative to the base-year 1999–2000. To date, we have met this target through the purchase of green electricity exempt from the climate change levy and by a small reduction in consumption through closer building temperature control. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) will agree new targets for 2010, based on benchmarking the performance of individual buildings where possible, by the end of this year.

  We have recently reviewed energy consumption across our estate. As a result, we now intend to set further specific efficiency targets which we aim to achieve by upgrading building facilities, using more energy efficient equipment, staff awareness campaigns and improved monitoring.

  Export Controls (Small Arms)
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the meeting held by his Department in
  641W
  London in January on export controls of small arms; and what minimum standards were agreed for exports of small arms and light weapons. [117916]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer given by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), on 23 May 2003,Official Report, column 782W, and that given by the then International Development Secretary on 10 March 2003, Official Report, column 39W.

  Guantanamo Bay Prisoners
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made in relation to the human rights of British prisoners in Guantanamo Bay; and if he will make a statement. [118262]

  Mr. Straw
  The issue of the detainees' rights under international law is linked, at least in part, to the question of their status, which depends on all the facts of the individual cases. Whatever their status, the detainees are entitled to humane treatment and if prosecuted, a fair trial. We have made this clear to the United States authorities. They have assured us they will treat the detainees humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Conventions.

  UK officials visited the British detainees in Guantanamo Bay for a fifth time in April. As part of this visit they checked on the welfare of the detainees who appeared generally to be in sound physical health. The physical conditions of their detention appear to be satisfactory. We have raised any welfare concerns we may have with the US authorities.

  Iraq
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence his Department has collated on whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction on 18 March. [115513]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government published its assessment of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programmes in September 2002, based on evidence drawn from a range of sources, including the reports of the UN weapons inspectors.

  There remained, on 18 March, no evidence to show that Iraq's weapons had been destroyed. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, the onus was firmly on Iraq to demonstrate its full compliance with the disarmament obligations contained in a succession of previous resolutions. They had also failed to address any of the unresolved disarmament issues arising from the final report of the UNSCOM Executive Chairman, Richard Butler, produced in February 1999.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs [pursuant to his answer of 6 May,Official Report, columns 562–63W], on Iraq, what discussions took place on options for a new judicial system (a) among the members of the Coalition and (b) among members of the UN Security Council prior to the commencement of military action. [116289]
  642W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We maintain regular contact with the US Ministry of Justice but we have no record of any specific discussions on options for a new Iraqi judicial system that took place prior to the commencement of military action.

  In accordance with UNSCR 1483, the Coalition Provisional Authority will work with the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General to assist the Iraqi people with legal and judicial reform. The UK has already deployed personnel to assist in this work. Assessments are underway as to how to take forward the justice sector but the immediate priority remains to reinvigorate a basic law and order capacity.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role is to be played by the UN in offering technical advice to the US and British Governments on good governance in Iraq. [117036]

  Mr. Rammell
  Security Council resolution 1483 calls for the United Nations Special Representative for Iraq to work closely with the Coalition Provisional Authority on a variety of issues including the rebuilding of Iraq and restoration and establishment of national and local institutions for representative governance in Iraq. We recognise that the UN has valuable experience which it can bring to bear on the situation and we will be staying in close touch with the Special Representative.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list reconstruction contracts approval by the Iraq Assistance Fund; the value of each and the contractor with whom the contract has been agreed; [118202]

  (2) what the total income of the Iraqi Assistance Fund is; from which source funds are drawn; and how much has come from each source; [118203]

  (3) what the membership is of the controlling body of the Iraqi Assistance Fund; how many times it has met; and what reports it has published; [118205]

  (4) by what process contractors are sought by the Iraq Assistance Fund; and what criteria are used to invite bids. [118226]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  It will take a little while to assemble and confirm the information requested. I will write to my hon. Friend as soon as I can and will place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when a state of war existed between the UK and Iraq; and what the current relationship between the two countries is. [118206]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A state of war was never declared between the UK and Iraq. The UK is an occupying power in Iraq and is carrying out its responsibilities under the Hague Regulations, Geneva Convention IV and UNSCR 1483.

  Kyoto Protocol
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken recently to persuade the Russian Federation to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. [117367]

  Mr. Rammell
  In recent months, the UK, other EU member states and other countries that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol, have pressed the importance of ratification on the Russians on many occasions at ministerial and official level. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister wrote to President Putin earlier this year urging ratification and the President of the European Commission, Romano Prodi, and the current President of the European Council, Costas Simitis, wrote more recently. President Putin's replies of 4 February and 9 May 2003 respectively stated that Russia hoped to be in a position to make a recommendation to the State Duma on the issue in the near future. We are now working more closely with Russia to address the technical issues surrounding Kyoto implementation. For example, last month the European Commission hosted a seminar for Russian and EU officials, which discussed these practical issues and the UK jointly funded with other European countries a seminar in Moscow on 'Implementing Kyoto'.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with representatives of(a) the US Administration and (b) the Australian Administration regarding the ratification of the Kyoto Protocol. [117659]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has not recently discussed this issue with the US and Australian Administrations.

  The Government believe that the Kyoto Protocol, with its binding targets and timetables, is the only existing international framework for tackling climate change and take every opportunity to urge all countries that have not yet ratified it to do so as soon as possible.

  The Government are encouraged that although Australia will not be ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, it intends to meet its Kyoto Protocol target.

  We welcome the US's recognition that climate change is a serious problem and the fact that they are taking domestic action, although this will not result in the absolute reductions in greenhouse gas emissions that the US would have been committed to make under the Kyoto Protocol.

  Mr. Lakhman Vangha
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) when the papers in the case of Mr.Lakhman Vangha Modhvadiya (R/02/3534 and GV100/080442) were sent from Mumbai to the Home Office; [116934]

  (2) when the appeal papers from the High Commission in Mumbai, on the case of Mr. Lakhman Vangha Modhvadiya arrived in the Appeals Processing Centre of the Home Office. [116935]
  644W
  Mr. Rammell
  I am withholding the information requested under exemption 5 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  It is not our practice to disclose details of the individual entry clearance cases in a public forum. However, I will write to my hon. Friend about this.

  North Korea
  Mir. Best
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on relations between the UK and North Korea. [116955]

  Mr. Rammell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers I gave to the hon. Member for South West Devon (Mr. Streeter) on 3 June,Official Report, columns 12W and 13W.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what procedures his Department employs to ensure the swift reply to parliamentary questions. [117073]

  Mr. Straw
  I attach great importance to ensuring that Parliamentary Questions (PQs) are answered accurately, helpfully, and within recommended deadlines.

  The Parliamentary Relations and Devolution Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a team of staff dedicated to processing PQs and monitoring both quality and timeliness of replies. From November 2002 to March 2003 the FCO has answered 81 per cent. of Named Day PQs on time, 94 per cent. of ordinary PQs within seven working days and 87 per cent. within five working days. The Department sets annual objectives to improve this record.

  The Department also runs an active programme of outreach and training events to raise FCO officials' awareness of their obligations towards Parliament and todisseminate best practice in Parliamentary work.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether he plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in his Department. [117457]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office currently has no specific plans to conclude a formal "partnership agreement". Instead, the relationship the Department has with its Trade Union Side (TUS) operates in a spirit of partnership in which the TUS is given the opportunity to comment at an early stage in the development of all policies affecting the Department's staff.

  Pay Audit
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made on completing a pay audit in his Department and its non-departmental public bodies to measure any disadvantage in terms of remuneration for(a) women, (b) ethnic minorities and (c) people with disabilities; and if he will publish the results of such an audit. [117438]
  645W
  Mr. Straw
  An equal pay audit, examining remuneration between men and women in the FCO, was completed earlier this year by an external consultant. Once we have concluded discussion with Cabinet Office on the action plan, we will place a copy of the action plan in the Library of the House. We intend to undertake similar audits to examine pay of minority ethnic staff and staff with disabilities.

  The British Council has also completed an equal pay audit which covered gender, ethnic minorities and people with disabilities.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in his Department and non-departmental public bodies on implementing the requirements of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000; and if he will publish the results of the monitoring required by the Act. [117622]

  Mr. Straw
  The FCO published its Race Equality Scheme, setting out how it would meet the requirements of the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000, in June 2002. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House. The FCO is shortly to issue its report on progress during the first year of the Scheme. This will include the results of the monitoring required by the Act. We will ensure that a copy is sent to my hon. Friend.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the(a) number of staff employed by, and (b) budget of each regulatory body for which his Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117787]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not have responsibility for any regulatory bodies.

  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department has taken to guarantee political representation and civil rights for Turks and Caicos citizens and passport holders. [117087]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Turks and Caicos Islands constitution provides for a Legislature which includes 13 elected members and contains provisions for the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department has taken to ensure that the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands fulfils its obligations under international treaties on the rights of the child. [117088]

  Mr. MacShane
  The FCO have contracted the children's charity National Children's Homes to prepare, with the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) Government legislation compatible with the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
  646W
  The TCI has a local Committee specifically on Rights of the Child. Following a recommendation by a local independent Constitutional Review Committee, the TCI Government established a Human Rights Committee last November to enhance monitoring and maintenance of its obligations.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department has taken to ensure that those born in the Turks and Caicos Islands get full access to lifesaving anti-retroviral drugs. [117089]

  Mr. MacShane
  Health is the responsibility of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) Government, who are actively addressing the issue both on their own and in collaboration with regional organisations and individual states in the region. An HIV triple drug therapy programme is offered free to pregnant women.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the refugee and asylum screening process is for Haitian boat people arriving in the Turks and Caicos. [117090]

  Mr. MacShane
  Immigration is the responsibility of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) Government. The TCI authorities believe that those arriving by sea are economic migrants. Those detained are screened for identification purposes and usually repatriated as soon as possible. There have been no known asylum cases from Haiti. TCI bears the substantial costs of detention and repatriation by air.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what measures his Department has taken to guarantee that the Government of the Turks and Caicos Islands provides education for all school aged children born in the Islands. [117091]

  Mr. MacShane
  Education is the responsibility of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) Government. They have a policy of free compulsory education for all up to the age of 16. Provision of education is available to all children legally resident in TCI.

  Diplomatic Residence (San Francisco)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the value of the Consul General's house in San Francisco; and what economic calculations he used to make his assessment. [115971]

  Mr. Rammell
  Replacement of the present over-scale Residence of the Consul General in San Francisco will make a net contribution to FCO finances and reduce the annual resource charge we pay to the Treasury for the property by half. The decision was based on the usual value for money criteria discounted back to net present value and informed by the reports of our local property agents on prospects for the San Francisco market. It was never our intention that the new Residence should provide for entertainment on the same scale as the old. Comparisons based on the presumed extra cost incurred by moving to a smaller Residence are therefore unnecessary. I am satisfied that this is a good deal for the taxpayer.
  647W
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether ministerial authority was given for the deposit placed on a replacement residence for the Consul General in San Francisco. [116098]

  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]FCO procedures do not call for specific Ministerial authority before purchasing individual properties. The more important cases, under normal delegations, would be submitted to the Permanent Under Secretary (PUS). The PUS may then decide to refer this matter to Ministers. In this case we were operating within a strategy which has been approved by the previous PUS, having discussed the matter with Ministers in 2001. and which had been endorsed by the present PUS, having visited the property in 2002.

DEFENCE

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much opium has been(a) impounded and (b) destroyed by ISAF forces in Afghanistan in each month since January 2002. [116418]

  Mr. Ingram
  Where ISAF forces come across opium, the drugs, and any individuals involved, are handed over to the Afghanistan authorities. However, it is possible that during initial ISAF operations, some drug stockpiles were destroyed.

  The Headquarters of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) does not maintain a record of the quantity of opium which may have been impounded and/or destroyed by ISAF forces.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions have been given to British forces in Afghanistan(a) to impound and (b) to destroy (i) opium and (ii) heroin. [116419]

  Mr. Ingram
  None of the British forces who are serving in Afghanistan has been instructed to impound or destroy opium or heroin. However, where British forces come across opium or heroin, the drugs, and any individuals involved, are handed over to the Afghanistan authorities.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what financial resources his Department has allocated specifically to reducing opium production in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [116811]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has not allocated resources specifically to reduce opium production in Afghanistan. Increased security and stability are vital to Afghanistan's attempts to reduce opium production. Our contributions towards this have been considerable through Operation FINGAL (our contribution to International Security Assistance Force (ISAF)) and Operation VERITAS (our contribution to the coalition against international terrorism). The costs for these operations for Financial Year 2002–03 are approximately £30 million and £170 million respectively.

  Armed Forces (Food Supplies)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where beef is processed into burgers for consumption by the armed forces. [117669]

  Mr. Ingram
  The beefburgers currently supplied to the armed forces are processed in Normandy, France.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether beef is reared and produced in the Republic of Ireland for consumption for the armed forces. [117670]

  Mr. Ingram
  A small proportion of the beef purchased for the armed forces is sourced in the Republic of Ireland for processing into beefburgers.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to increase the amount of beef produced in the UK for UK armed forces consumption. [117671]

  Mr. Ingram
  While increasing beef production in the United Kingdom is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Defence, we are keen to purchase UK products for the armed forces whenever they are competitive. Currently, 55 per cent. of the armed forces' total annual consumption of beef is British. It would be contrary to Article 30 of the EU Treaty of Rome to unfairly favour British product.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence where(a) lamb, (b) pork, (c) poultry and (d) milk for consumption by the armed forces is reared, processed and produced. [117672]

  Mr. Ingram
  Food for the armed forces is sourced from many countries throughout the world, but United Kingdom products are always sourced if they are competitive, they meet the relevant minimum specifications and the supply chain can be guaranteed. Of the meat purchased, lamb is sourced from New Zealand, Uruguay, Australia and the UK. Pork and bacon is all sourced from the UK. Chicken is sourced from France, Brazil and the UK.

  Fresh milk is sourced from the UK for consumption in UK and Germany for consumption in Germany. UHT milk or locally-procured fresh, is supplied to other overseas units.

  Armed Forces Personnel
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what percentage of(a) Naval Service, (b) Army and (c) Royal Air Force personnel are available for operational duties. [112013]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government will continue to ensure that sufficient troops are available to meet the tasks that we ask them to perform. The exact percentage of personnel available for operational duties at any given moment is a combination of a number of factors. These include the level of preparedness of forces, governed by readiness and position in the training cycle, and by the nature of the operation. Time would be needed to bring some force elements to the required level of training for particularly demanding operational theatres. Equally, the medical condition of individual service personnel may impact on their availability for operations, though
  649W
  it does not immediately follow that personnel who are medically downgraded are unfit for all operational tasks.

  British Warships
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent representations he has received from the Spanish Government in respect of British and NATO warships patrolling the straits of Gibraltar. [117496]

  Mr. Ingram
  None.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what additional security measures have been taken by British warships visiting foreign ports(a) on entry and (b) when alongside; and what arrangements are made with host countries. [117497]

  Mr. Ingram
  The safety of our people and assets remain of paramount importance. Effective force protection for Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary ships visiting foreign ports is provided by a combination of internal and external security measures. The latter is the responsibility of the host nation with whom our Attaches and Fleet Security authorities liaise closely to ensure that adequate security measures, commensurate with the perceived threat, are put in place. Ultimately, a visit may be cancelled if it is considered that the risks outweigh the benefits to be gained from Defence Diplomacy. Measures vary considerably with the perceived threat but have included armed patrol vessel escorts to berths, booms placed around the ship, armed guards on the jetty and controlled access to the port and the ship. I am withholding precise information under Exemption 1 (Defence, security and International affairs) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many four-bedroomed houses at the Colchester Garrison are empty; and how many families are on the waiting list for a four-bedroomed house. [117398]

  Dr. Moonie
  No families entitled to four bedroom accommodation at Colchester Garrison are being kept waiting. The Defence Housing Executive (DHE) is however aware of 10 families in the Colchester area currently housed according to their entitlement under Tri Service Accommodation Regulations (TSARs) who would like to move to a larger, four-bedroomed property. 51 four-bedroomed Service family houses in the locality are currently empty, but almost all are already allocated to incoming entitled families, or are in the course of modernisation works, or are earmarked for disposal.

  Death Benefits
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many death benefits for(a) single servicemen, (b) married servicemen and (c) servicemen with unmarried partners in a substantial relationship have been paid since 1997; what the cost was for each category; and if he will make a statement. [116145]
  650W
  Dr. Moonie
  Under the Armed Forces Pension Scheme (AFPS), number of single, and married service personnel who have died in service since 1 January 1997 and death benefits paid are as follows:

  Category

  Number

  Single servicemen/women

  1 541

  Married servicemen/women

  2 503

  1 A lump sum is payable to the estate of single personnel with no dependants. This would be a sum equivalent to three time the national pension calculated up to the date of death, or two times the full career pension rate whichever is the greater.

  2 A lump sum is payable when the death occurs is service. A short-term team Family Pension equal to the service person's daily rate of persionable pay is payable for a period of 91 days or 182 days (if there are children or the death was attributable to service). Thereafter, either a Long-term Forces Family Pension or an enhanced Attributable Forces Family pension is payable to the widow(er). Children's benefits are payable for up to a maximum of four children, and are paid until age 17 or full-time education ceases.

  On 20 March, I announced in a Written Statement that, from that date, unmarried partners, including same sex partners, of service personnel whose death was related to conflict would be eligible for ex-gratia benefits equivalent to those awarded to spouses under the AFPS. Partners would need to demonstrate that the relationship was substantial. We have received five claims for ex-gratia benefits under these arrangements but to date no decisions have been taken. Prior to the policy change, the Department offered an ex-gratia award to one unmarried partner; this was a response to the exceptional circumstances of the case. It would not be appropriate to discuss the value of the offer, which was a matter for the individual concerned. Under the War Pension Scheme (WPS) the number of death benefits paid in respect of deaths in service, and retirement since 1 January 1997 are as follows:

  Category

  Number

  Single servicemen/women

  3 Nil

  Married Servicemen/women

  4 9,711

  Servicemen/women with Unmarried partners

  5 Nil

  3 No benefits payable under the WPS.

  4 Standard rate of war widows/widowers pension is £93.85 per week. Other elements such as age/rent allowance or supplementary pension can also be paid. In addition to widower(ers) pensions, figure includes 91 awards of child allowances/orphans pensions paid: these are awarded in respect of the child regardless of whether the parents were married.

  5 Although no awards have been implemented since 1997, pensions for unmarried dependants are available where the relationship began six months prior to the start of the deceased's entry into the Service and the unmarried dependant has in their charge a child of the deceased.

  Information about the number of death benefits paid where the death occurred in retirement under the AFPS, and the costs of death benefits under the AFPS/WPS are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Document Disclosure
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what instructions he has given to his Department's officials on limitations on the disclosure
  651W
  of documents requested by (a) the investigation team of His Honour Judge Corey and (b) the Inquiry team of Mr. Justice Barry. [116868]

  Mr. Ingram
  I believe my hon. Friend refers to the Cory investigation into six cases where allegations of collusion by security forces have been made and the Barron inquiry into the Dublin/Monaghan and Dundalk bombings.

  The Government are co-operating fully with Justice Cory's investigation and the inquiry of Mr. Justice Barron. In doing so, the Government must take account of its obligations to prevent real harm to national security and to safeguard the individuals right to life.

  Falkland Islands
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 448W, on the Falkland Islands, when the last APT(S) came off station. [117658]

  Mr. Ingram
  The last Atlantic Patrol Task (South) ship, HMS Westminster, departed the Falkland Islands Area of Responsibility (FIAOR) on 26 October 2002 and finally left the Atlantic theatre of operations on 28 November 2002. For the majority of the gapped period, in addition to the Falkland Islands Patrol Vessel HMS Leeds Castle, the RN continued to contribute to the significant UK presence in the South Atlantic with the APT(S) tanker RFA Grey Rover, prior to her re-deployment on 31 January 2003 for Operation Telic duties, and the Ice Patrol Ship HMS Endurance, before she left the FIAOR on 18 March 2003.

  Female Submariners
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the Government's policy is on female submariners; for what reasons females may not serve in submarines; and if he will make a statement. [118190]

  Dr. Moonie
  Women are excluded from service in submarines because no assurance can be given regarding the safety of a foetus due to the presence of contaminants which build up in the atmosphere of a submarine. The medical evidence on this issue is kept under review, most recently by the Defence Scientific Advisory Counsel and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists in the summer of 2001. At present, there are no plans to change the policy of excluding women from the submarine service.

  Gulf War (Compensation)
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if(a) medical reservists and (b) non-medical reservists in the Gulf are receiving compensation equal to their civilian salaries; and if he will make a statement. [118191]

  Dr. Moonie
  Under the provisions of the Reserve Forces Act 1996, any Reservists whose military salary is less than their civilian earnings may apply for financial assistance. This consists of a Standard Award that is calculated on the difference between civilian and military salaries. The amount that may be awarded is limited within set bands related to rank and specialism. If a Standard Award is insufficient to avert serious financial difficulties, a Reservist can also apply for a652W
  Hardship Award to cover essential outgoings such as mortgage repayments, school fees, child care costs etc. Hardship Awards are calculated on essential expenditure rather than actual earnings and there is no financial limit on the amount that may be awarded.

  The regulations governing financial assistance for Reservists are contained in Statutory Instrument 309 of 1997 ("The Reserve Forces (Call-Out and Recall) (Financial Assistance) Regulations 1997"), and are currently under review.

  Hercules
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to convert short fuselage C-130J Hercules C5 aircraft into long fuselage Hercules C4s. [112688]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Air Force operates a fleet of 25 C130J aircraft, comprising 15 Mk 4 long fuselage and 10 Mk 5 short fuselage aircraft. There are currently no plans to convert short fuselage aircraft to the long fuselage variant. The balance between Mk 4 and Mk 5 aircraft will be kept under review, in the light, for example, of operational experience.

  Iraq
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the availability was of the AS90, in percentage terms, on Operation Telic(a) on the first day of combat operations, (b) on 30 April 2003 and (c) on average for the duration of combat operations in Iraq; and if he will make a statement on its operational effectiveness. [111824]

  Mr. Ingram
  Post operational reporting will provide analysis and assessment of the performance of equipment deployed on operations in Iraq. It would, therefore, be premature for me to provide a detailed assessment of the performance or availability of individual equipments at this stage. However, the indications are that the AS90 fleet deployed on Operation Telic was very reliable and performed impressively.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tomahawk missiles were used in Iraq during Operation Telic; and what plans there are to replace them. [111839]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom submarines launched a number of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles during operations in Iraq. I am withholding the precise number of missiles fired and plans to replace them in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many prisoners have been released by British forces in the Gulf. [112078]

  Mr. Ingram
  As at 28 May 2003, 2,282 prisoners of war had been released by the United Kingdom.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether extended SCUD missiles have been found in post-war Iraq. [112478]
  653W
  Mr. Hoon
  As at 9 June 2003, Coalition Forces had not found any extended-range SCUD missiles in Iraq. Coalition Forces are initiating investigations into sites which may be connected with Iraqi programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction in breach of United Nations resolutions, and into other sources of evidence such as documentation or interviews with relevant Iraqi personnel. Investigations are at an early stage and we expect gathering and collating evidence from the various sources to be a long and complex task. We will aim to release information concerning evidence of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction programmes when and where appropriate, as we did before the conflict began.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his estimate is of the cost of the clearance of unexploded ordnance left after military action by British forces in Iraq. [116260]

  Mr. Ingram
  A mix of abandoned Iraqi munitions, as well as United States and United Kingdom ordnance, exists in the UK area of operation. However, UK EOD forces are engaged in the clearance of unexploded ordnance in their area of operations, irrespective of its origin. The costs of the EOD force—in terms of salaries and explosives—amount to some £330,000 per month. A cost of clearance of UK munitions alone would not therefore be meaningful.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the questions asked by the hon. Member for Southport on 8 May about specific details in the Government's dossier on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction as laid before the House on 24 September 2002 will be answered; and what is delaying a response. [117822]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the Prime Minister's statement of 14 April 2003,Official Report, column 615–17, on Iraq and the Middle East, how many of the possible sites for weapons of mass destruction have (a) been visited and (b) not been visited; what reasons have prevented sites being visited and inspected; and whether the list has been shared with the UN weapons inspectors. [112366]

  Mr. Hoon
  As at 4 June 2003, Coalition forces had initiated investigations into 140 sites within Iraq, from a master list of over 500, which may be connected to programmes to develop weapons of mass destruction. Additionally, investigations had been initiated into a further 67 sites identified since the conflict began. This master list subsumes the 146 sites referred to by the Prime Minister on 14 April 2003 and includes sites identified by our Coalition partners. These sites are being investigated as quickly as practicable and we expect further sites to be identified as investigations progress. Such sites are only one potential form of evidence; others could include delivery systems, documentation or interviews with relevant Iraqi personnel. We expect gathering and collating evidence from these sources to be a long and complex task.

  The majority of the sites on the Coalition master list were already known to the UN, having been identified by UNSCOM and the IAEA during their previous inspections. Before the conflict began, UK personnel
  654W
  briefed UN inspectors on suspect activities and capabilities at around 60 of the known sites, and on around 40 additional sites of which we suspected the inspectors may be unaware. We believe that we were as helpful as possible to the UN, working on a presumption of disclosure unless there were pressing security reasons not to. It is likely that other nations shared similar information with the UN concerning possible WMD sites.

  Jaguar Fleet
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will make a statement on the grounding of RAF Jaguars; [117503]

  (2) what problems have been experienced with the Rolls Royce Adour Mk 106 engines fitted to the Jaguar fleet; and if he will make a statement. [117504]

  Mr. Ingram
  On 8 May 2003, whilst operating from RAF Coltishall, a twin seat Jaguar T4 aircraft, powered by the Adour Mk 106 engine, made a precautionary landing due to a fire warning. The cause was found to be a technical problem that resulted in damage to the afterburner casing. As a result of this incident Jaguars fitted with the Adour Mk 106 engines did not fly until their engines had been inspected. These aircraft returned to normal flying on 24 May although some flying restrictions still apply pending a full engineering solution. Jaguar aircraft fitted with the Adour Mk 104 engines have no flying restrictions.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of the engine upgrade programme for the Jaguar fleet; and what improvements to the aircraft's performance have resulted in cases when the upgrade has been completed. [117505]

  Mr. Ingram
  The cost of the Jaguar aircraft Adour Mk 106 engine upgrade programme is £105 million. The programme will reduce the through life costs of the aircraft propulsion system by increasing engine reliability and availability.

  In addition the upgraded Adour Mk 106 engine provides an increase in thrust over the current Mk 104 engine. This increase improves the operational effectiveness of the Jaguar aircraft particularly when deployed in hot climates.

  Non-precision Weapons
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Answer of 16 May 2003,Official Report, column 454W, on non-precision weapons, how many (a) 5401b free fall bombs, (b) 1,0001b free fall bombs and (c) RBL 755 cluster bombs were dropped by UK forces in urban areas in (i) Afghanistan during Operation Enduring Freedom and (ii) Iraq during Operation Telic; whether, during post mission target assessments, 5401b and 1,0001b free fall bombs and RBL 755 cluster bombs are considered to have hit their target if they fall within the radius of their average accuracy; and if he will make a statement. [116051]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]No weapons were dropped by United Kingdom aircraft in support of Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. During the course of operations in Iraq,
  655W
  while none of the weapons detailed in the question were dropped in dense urban areas, a number of military targets on the periphery of built up areas were attacked. 5401b and 1,0001b free fall bombs and RB 755 cluster bombs are considered to have hit their target if the weapon causes damage to the intended target.

  Reservists
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) medical treatment and (b) other work medical reservists stationed in Iraq have carried out in the last month; and if he will make a statement. [115073]

  Dr. Moonie
  From 1 to 30 May, medical reservists stationed in Iraq have performed a wide range of medical procedures ranging from the general treatment of minor cuts through to major surgical intervention following the traumatic amputation of a limb. The patient in this case was a 10-year-old Iraqi girl. It is not possible at this time to give details on specific treatments, however 202 (Volunteer) Field Hospital have undertaken 711 Primary Health Care treatments, 37 Theatre procedures and seen 1,123 patients in Accident and Emergency. During this time, medical reservists have also relocated an entire field hospital, facilitated visits from various agencies and have served with aeromedical evacuation teams throughout the evacuation chain.

  Tomahawk Missiles
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Tomahawk cruise missiles were fired by the Royal Navy during the Gulf conflict; and from which vessels. [112257]

  Mr. Ingram
  Two United Kingdom submarines, HMS Splendid and Turbulent, fired a number of Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles during operations in Iraq. I am withholding the precise number of missiles fired by each in accordance with Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to Defence, Security and International Relations.

  Service Veterans
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) parliamentary questions have been tabled, (b) enquiries have been received from hon. Members, (c) early day motions have been tabled, (d) petitions have been presented, with the total number of signatories, (e) representations have been received from organisations representing veterans and (f) representations have been received from members of the public calling for the award of a medal for those who served in the Suez Canal Zone in the early 1950s, since May 1997; and if he will make a statement. [117420]

  Dr. Moonie
  Since May 1997 the Ministry of Defence has responded to approximately 27 parliamentary questions, 510 letters from hon. Members and seven early-day motions on the subject of a campaign medal for those who served in the Suez Canal Zone in the early 1950s. In addition, 415 representations have been received from members of the public, a number of whom undoubtedly represented the views of one or more of the several Canal Zone veterans organisations, though it 656W
  would not be possible to differentiate between them and letters from individuals. One petition was presented to the MOD by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) in 1998, containing approximately 20,000 signatures.

  As the hon. Member is fully aware; the matter of a campaign medal for the Canal Zone presently rests with the HD Committee and not with the Ministry of Defence. The Committee is deliberating on recommendations submitted by a special sub-committee created late last year for the sole purpose of reviewing the case for a Canal Zone medal and will publish its decision, subject to the Queen's approval, very soon.

  Sickness Absence
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the average number of sick days was in his Department for(a) civilian and (b) military staff in each year since 1997; what percentage of staff were on long term sick leave in each year; and if he will make a statement. [116865]

  Dr. Moonie
  The average number of sick days in the Ministry of Defence for civilian staff are as follows:

  Number of days

  1997

  7.9

  1998

  8.0

  1999

  8.8

  2000

  8.8

  2001

  —

  2002

  —

  The percentage of civilian staff on long term sick leave in the Ministry of Defence are as follows:

  Percentage of civilian staff

  1997

  —

  1998

  —

  1999

  5.7

  2000

  5.9

  2001

  —

  2002

  6.4

  Figures are for non-industrial staff and include staff on unpaid sick leave. Industrial staff, Trading Funds and RFAs are not included.

  Sick absence data for all Government Departments, which includes information about the average number of days lost to sickness absence, are published in an annual Cabinet Office report "Analysis of Sick Absence in the Civil Service". Copies of the 1999, 2000 and 2001 reports are available in the Library. However, the 2001 report excludes data for the Ministry of Defence, pending the introduction of a new and more accurate statistical reporting system. The 2002 report, which will include MOD data, will be placed in the Library of the House on publication.

  The report does not contain information about long term sick absence, the figures therefore are based on internal figures. Long term sickness is defined as staff who have been on sick leave for a spell of 30 calendar

  657W
  days or more in a calendar year. Due to data inaccuracies the figures for 1997, 1998 and 2001 are not available.

  A programme of measures is being implemented to help meet the target in MOD's Service Delivery Agreement to reduce sickness absence to 7.0 days by the end of 2003 (target adjusted following the reorganisation of Government Departments in 2000). This includes a regular audit of long-term sick cases. MOD is committed to improving the health of its staff and managing sick absence more effectively.

  Records are not held centrally of the number of sick days taken annually by military personnel or the percentage on long term sick leave. This information could be compiled only from records held locally by units, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  TA Estate
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 21 May 2003,Official Report, column 787W, on Territorial Army Estate, when he intends to secure a sale of TAC Greenhithe; and if he will make a statement. [116760]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is hoped a sale will be concluded in the near future.

  TA Medics
  Mr. Mullin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many TA medics are serving in Iraq; and when he expects them to be discharged. [117548]

  Dr. Moonie
  The majority of Territorial Army (TA) medical personnel currently deployed in Iraq are serving with 202 Field Hospital (V) (a total of 483 TA medical personnel). These personnel are expected to be released from theatre through a staged process over the next few weeks, and all should have returned to the United Kingdom by the end of July 2003. Additionally there are a relatively small number of further individual appointments filled by TA medical personnel who will leave theatre when their parent Regular unit leaves.

  TA Reservists
  Mr. Keith Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many TA reservists mobilised for Operation Telic have not yet received their full pay and allowances. [117838]

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

  Tri-Service Act
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to replace the Armed Forces Acts with a tri-service Act; and if he will make a statement on progress towards publication of a Bill in 2005. [117327]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Strategic Defence Review indicated our intention to replace the Army and Air Force Acts 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 (the Service discipline acts) with a tri-Service Act. Work is proceeding on this project, which has the purpose of 658W
  providing a legislative framework better capable of meeting the needs of armed forces that increasingly operate together.

  The next five-yearly Armed Forces Bill, which will be needed to extend the life of the Service discipline acts, is due in the 2005–06 session. However, it will be understood that no commitments can be given at this stage as to when the tri-Service legislation might be introduced, as this will be subject to the availability of Parliamentary time.

  University Air Squadrons
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement of the financial benefits realised in each year since the transfer of the RAF's elementary flying training to the university air squadrons. [117490]

  Mr. Ingram
  Formal Elementary Flying Training (EFT) has been conducted at the University Air Squadrons (UAS) since 1993. Records of financial benefits have not been kept. However, we have recently studied the benefits of conducting EFT at the UASs compared with providing this training on a regional basis or at central location following recruitment to the Royal Air Force (RAF). The regional option offered no benefits. The central location option did offer a marginal cost benefit, but was not adopted because of the high risk that the removal of flying training from the UASs would render them less attractive to undergraduates and would, consequently, lose the support of universities for the UAS system as a whole. Additionally, there would be a reduction in return of service from graduates entering the RAF through non-flying UASs since these individuals would have to spend several months completing EFT before progressing to the more advanced phases of pilot training.

  We are transferring the RAF Direct Entrant EFT currently undertaken at the Joint Elementary Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton to the UASs when the current contract expires early My 2003. This is expected to yield savings of at least £1.5 million a year.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the Royal Air Force concerning the impact of transferring the RAF's elementary flying training to the university air squadrons. [117491]

  Mr. Ingram
  None. The recent decision to transfer the Royal Air Force Direct Entrant Elementary Flying Training, currently undertaken at the RAF Joint Elementary Flying Training School at RAF Church Fenton, to the University Air Squadrons was a matter for the Chief Executive of the RAF Training Group Defence Agency. I was briefed on the rationale for his decision and was content.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proportion of students who joined the university air squadrons subsequently dropped out of the programme in each of the past five years. [117492]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of students who joined the University Air Squadrons (UASs) and subsequently dropped out are not held. The UASs recruit to an annual target of up to 300 with a view to delivering 80 to
  659W
  90 graduate pilots for the RAF each year. It is evident from this that the UASs lose some 210 to 220 students each year. These losses include students who drop out for a variety of reasons and those who complete the full term but then choose not to join the RAF or are not selected or are suitable for entry but there are insufficient vacancies. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave him on 16 December 2002, Official Report, column 520W.

  War Pensions
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many applications for entitlements for War Disability Pensions and War Widow(er)s Pensions are held pending by the Veterans Agency of the MoD; and how many applications were processed during the first quarter of 2003. [117808]

  Dr. Moonie
  As at 31 May 2003 the Veterans Agency had 5,232 first and further condition entitlement claims for war disablement pension pending. There were also 221 applications for War Widow(er)s Pension pending.

  During the period 1 January to 31 March 2003 the Veterans Agency processed 5,927 claims in respect of disablement and 686 claims for War Widow(er)s Pension.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Afghan Refugees
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the repatriation of Afghan refugees. [116627]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government's preferred option for repatriating Afghan asylum applicants whose asylum claims have been rejected is assisted voluntary return, in line with the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding on Voluntary Return between the UK, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Afghan Transitional Administration. As agreed with the Afghan authorities from spring this year onwards those not choosing voluntary return and found to be without protection or humanitarian needs will be subject to enforcement action. We started enforced returns on 28 April 2003 and there will be flights once a month from now on.

  We are working closely with the Afghan authorities to ensure that all returns, whether enforced or voluntary, are phased, managed and dignified. We offer all returnees a training and employment package designed to ensure that their return is sustainable and that they can therefore make a positive contribution to the reconstruction of their homeland.

  We will continue to monitor the situation in Afghanistan with a view to developing our returns programme accordingly.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many Afghan citizens who arrived on the hijacked plane at Stansted in February 2000(a) have been returned to Afghanistan, (b) have been granted asylum or leave to remain and (c) are still in the UK. [114721]
  660W
  Beverley Hughes
  Of the 170 people on the hijacked plane, 84 have returned voluntarily to Afghanistan and 18, including 13 dependants, have been granted asylum in the UK.

  The remaining 68 are still in the UK, most pending completion of appeals or legal processes of one kind or another. Of this 68, the accused hijackers and their families comprise 34 people. Nine of the hijackers were convicted and imprisoned until recently. In the case of these nine hijackers their convictions have now been overturned by the Court of Appeal.

  Action is being taken to remove all such remaining people as soon as possible as it is clear there is no legal or other barrier to their removal.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders are in force in Leeds. [116188]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Available information given in the table shows the number of notifications received by the Home Office of Antisocial Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) issued within the West Yorkshire Magistrates' Courts Committee (MCCs) area (in which the City of Leeds is situated) and by local government authority up to 30 November 2002 (latest available). Data are not collected centrally on the number of ASBOs in force at any given time.

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

  The number of ASBOs as notified to the Home Office, by West Yorkshire Magistrates' Courts Committee and local authority area, April 1999-November 2002

  MCC/local authority area

  Total issued

  West Yorkshire MCC

  25

  of which

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 by pfa

  4

  From 1 June 2000 to 30 November 2002 by local authority area

  21

  Bradford, City of

  2

  Kirklees MC

  5

  Leeds CC

  14

  Note:

  Between 1 April 1999–31 May 2000 data available by police force area only.

  Crime/Policing
  Shona Mclsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many anti-social behaviour orders have been(a) applied for and (b) issued by North Lincolnshire council in each year since their introduction; [116156]
  661W
  (2) how many anti-social behaviour orders have been (a) applied for and (b) issued by Humberside police in each year since their introduction; [116155]

  (3) how many anti-social behaviour orders have been (a) applied for and (b) issued by North East Lincolnshire council in each year since their introduction. [116154]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  Anti-Social Behaviour Orders (ASBOs) were introduced from 1 April 1999. Information held centrally up to 31 May 2000 is for the number of ASBOs issued within England and Wales by notice force area only.

  Number of applications1 for ASBOs issued within the Humberside MCC area, as reported to the Home Office, by type of applicant and result, 1 April 1999 to 30 November 2002

  Applications made by Humberside police force

  Applications made by North Lincolnshire council

  Applications made by North East Lincolnshire council

  Period

  Applied for

  Issued

  Applied for

  Issued

  Applied for

  Issued

  1 April 1999 to 31 May 20002

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  0

  n/a

  0

  1 June 2000 to 31 December 2001

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  1 January 2002 to 30 November 20023

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  0

  2

  2

  0

  0

  n/a = Not available

  1 Information collected centrally is the number of applications either issued or refused. Applications withdrawn are not reported.

  2 From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 information was collected on the number of ASBOs issued only within police force areas (pfas). During this period no ASBOs were recorded as issued within the Humberside pfa.

  3 Latest available. Following implementation of the Police Reform Act (2 December 2002) data for December 2002 will be included in the first quarter 2003.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government has to cease the support-only benefit for asylum seekers; and if he will make a statement. [113892]

  Beverley Hughes
  Section 43 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (the 2002 Act) provides for the withdrawal of financial support only to asylum seekers. Use of this provision is by way of an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. We have no current plans to make any order under this provision.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many National Asylum Support Service private rented landlord houses there are in(a) Leeds and (b) the Leeds, West constituency; and what his estimate is of the total number of asylum seekers housed in (i) Leeds and (ii) Leeds West. [116009]

  Beverley Hughes
  The number of properties supplied to the National Asylum Support Service (NASS), as at 3 June 2003, by private contractors is(a) 468 in Leeds; (b) 25 in Leeds West. NASS also has a contract with the Yorkshire and Humberside Consortium of Local Authorities. The consortium may contract with private landlords.

  The information for parts (i) and (ii) is not available in the form requested.

  The availability of information on the location of asylum seekers in the United Kingdom is currently linked to the support the asylum seeker receives. Asylum seekers in the United Kingdom either receive support from NASS, local authorities or the Department
  662W
  From 1 June 2000 official statistics on the number of ASBO applications within England and Wales are based on quarterly returns from Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs). From copies of the orders we have been able to identify the type of applicant and local authority areas involved. Information is given in the table on the number of applications made to the magistrates courts (acting in their civil capacity), and the number issued, by type of applicant up to 30 November 2002 (latest available).

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

  for Work and Pensions (DWP), or are supporting themselves. There is no information available at constituency level.

  At the end of March 2003, 1,785 asylum seekers1 (including dependents) were being supported in NASS accommodation and 280 asylum seekers (including dependents) were in receipt of subsistence only support in Leeds.

  From the grant claims sent to the Home Office by local authorities, as at the end of March 2003, there were 40 asylum cases (comprising 30 individuals and 10 families) being supported by Leeds local authority1. (Asylum seekers are not necessarily resident in the local authority that supports them due to the voluntary dispersal programme which operated prior to NASS).

  No information is held centrally on the location or residence of asylum seekers supported by DWP or who support themselves.
  1 Figures have been rounded to the nearest five. These figures exclude cases where support has been ceased.
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on asylum seekers from Afghanistan. [116886]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Home Office determines asylum applications from Afghan nationals on their merits according to United Kingdom's obligations under the terms of the 1951 Convention for the Status of Refugees.
  663W
  In July 2002, in response to the improving situation in Afghanistan, we revised our blanket policy of granting exceptional leave to remain to all Afghans who do not qualify for refugee status.

  The Government's preferred option for repatriating Afghan asylum applicants whose asylum claims have been rejected is assisted voluntary return, in line with the Tripartite Memorandum of Understanding on Voluntary Return between the United Kingdom, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) and the Afghan Transitional Administration.

  On 28 April 2003 in line with our stated intentions and as agreed with the Afghan authorities we commenced enforced returns to Afghanistan. We are returning those not found to be in need of international protection or granted any other form of leave to remain who do not depart voluntarily.

  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, how many jailed asylum seekers from Somalia have been deported in each of the past six months [113893]

  Beverley Hughes
  Pursuant to her reply, 20 May 2003, 753W. I regret that due to an administrative error the information given in the text was not wholly complete. The complete answer should have been that the nationality of people who are removed from the UK after being detained under Immigration Act powers or on completion of a prison sentence is not available and could only be obtained by examining individual cases files, this would be at disproportionate cost.

  Furthermore statistics showing the total number of persons removed, by nationality, in the period January to March 2002 are due to be published at the end of August 2003 on the Home Office web-site: www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/whatsnew.1.html.

  Charities
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on measures that his Department has put in place to ease the administrative burden on charities. [117275]

  Beverley Hughes
  The Government are committed to removing unnecessary administrative burdens and legal restrictions on charities. We undertook to implement a package of measures to that end, by means of a Regulatory Reform Order (RRO). The need for an RRO has now been overtaken by the review undertaken by the Strategy Unit (SU) 'Private Action, Public Benefit'. We expect to announce our response to the consultation on the SU Report in the summer. We announced in February this year that a Charities Bill would be prepared and published in draft as soon as practicable. The reforms originally proposed for inclusion in the RRO will be considered for inclusion in a Charities Bill.

  Community Support Officers
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many community support officers there will be in each London borough under the 664W
  second funding round in 2003–04; how many were allocated to each London borough in the first round; and if he will make a statement [116748]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The allocation of Community Support Officers (CSOs) within the Metropolitan Police District is a matter for the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA) and the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. The number of CSOs being allocated to individual Boroughs as a result of each funding round is set out in the table.

  The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) was allocated 500 CSOs in the first funding round, where the Home Office paid for salaries and direct on-costs.

  They have also been allocated 250 CSOs in the second funding round on the basis that the Home Office will pay 50 per cent. of salaries and direct on-costs. The Commissioner has advised me though that the MPA will fully fund a further 250 CSOs. Their allocation is also included in the table.

  Boroughs

  Funding round one

  Funding round two and metropolitan police authority funded

  Total allocation to boroughts

  Barking and Dagenham

  0

  15

  15

  Barnet

  8

  22

  30

  Bexley

  0

  20

  20

  Brent

  10

  15

  25

  Bromley

  0

  28

  28

  Camden

  30

  0

  30

  Croydon

  10

  21

  31

  Baling

  8

  21

  29

  Enfield

  9

  17

  26

  Greenwich

  10

  10

  20

  Hackney

  11

  8

  19

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  8

  7

  15

  Haringey

  11

  9

  20

  Harrow

  0

  19

  19

  Havering

  0

  21

  21

  Hillingdon

  0

  33

  33

  Hounslow

  0

  30

  30

  Islington

  10

  6

  16

  Kensington and Chelsea

  30

  0

  30

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  0

  13

  13

  Lambeth

  21

  9

  30

  Lewisham

  10

  13

  23

  Merton

  0

  17

  17

  Newham

  40

  3

  43

  Redbridge

  0

  22

  22

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  0

  16

  16

  Southwark

  14

  9

  23

  Sutton

  0

  17

  17

  Tower Hamlets

  20

  18

  38

  Waltham Forest

  0

  20

  20

  Wandsworth

  0

  25

  25

  Westminster

  200

  17

  217

  Heathrow

  40

  0

  40

  Total

  500

  501

  11,001

  1Table shows 1,001 due to rounding up adjustments and part- time posts.

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of Community Support Officers in assisting police forces. [116873]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  More than 1,300 Community Support Officers (CSOs) are currently being deployed by police forces throughout England and Wales. We have already received a good deal of anecdotal information from a wide variety of sources that CSOs are having a positive effect in their communities by providing a visible and reassuring policing presence.
  665W
  The money given to each police force includes an element for evaluation and forces are due to send us their initial findings by the end of September.

  Contingency Planning
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many members of the Nottinghamshire police service have received specialist training at the Police National CBRN training centre to improve their potential response to a nuclear, biological or chemical terrorist attack. [116480]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]The total number of CBRN trained officers to date is approximately 3,700 with 2,434 of these having been trained by the PNCBRNC since August 2002. This is in line with the Association of Chief Police Officers desired level of training to ensure that police forces nationally have the necessary resilience to deal with a CBRN incident.

  It would not be appropriate, on security grounds, to give more specific information regarding the CBRN response capability in each police force.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letters of Miss P.C. Adams of Everton, Hampshire dated 7 February and 27 February regarding asylum. [112209]

  Beverley Hughes
  I am sorry that Miss Adams had not received replies to her letters. Immigration and Nationality Directorate officials have now written to Miss Adams.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 16 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Francis Mundan Bepfupfu. [117196]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 3 June 2003.

  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he intends to reply to the letter to him dated 22 April from the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton with regard to Mr. Abraham Kalola. [117197]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 3 June 2003.

  Crime Statistics
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many anti-social behaviour orders have been issued in the last two quarters in(a) Haltemprice and Howden, (b) the East Riding of Yorkshire and (c) the Humberside Police Authority area. [116770]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No notifications have been received by the Home Office of antisocial behaviour orders (ASBOs) issued, from 1 July 2002 to 30 November 2002 (latest available), within the Humberside Magistrates'666W
  Court Committee (MCC) area, (which includes the East Riding of Yorkshire unitary authority, in which the Haltemprice and Howden constituency is located).

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

  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the crime detection rate for each police division in Wales was in the last year for which figures are available. [116872]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The overall detection rate for police Basic Command Units is not available. The detection rates for six key offence groups, for all Basic Command Units in England and Wales, were published in table 8.05 in Home Office Statistical Bulletin 7/02, "Crime in England and Wales 2001–02", which is available in the Library.

  Deportations
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what arrangements he makes to check on the welfare of those of Chechen origin who are deported to the Russian Federation; what evidence he has that those of Chechen origin arrive safely in Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. [116320]

  Beverley Hughes
  There are no arrangements in place to check on the welfare of individual Chechens who are removed to the Russian Federation. However, in considering whether or not an unsuccessful asylum applicant from Chechnya should be removed to the Russian Federation, full account is taken of objective country information regarding the situation there for Chechens, as well as the ability of the individual concerned to reside in other parts of the Russian Federation. There has never been any question or possibility of removal from the UK either directly or indirectly to Chechnya. Whether or not an individual removed from the UK to the Russian Federation chooses to return to Chechnya is the decision of that individual.

  Dogs
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what advice his Department has given to police forces on dealing with stray dogs. [116842]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  No advice has been issued by the Home Office.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions he has had with(a) the Environmental Protection Agency and (b) Ministers in the Department of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on dealing with stray dogs. [116844]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  The Police Bureaucracy Taskforce's report, which was published on 17 September 2002, recommended that responsibility for dealing with stray dogs should be transferred, in full, to local authorities. The Home Office is continuing to discuss with relevant stakeholders how this recommendation should be taken forward within local government.

  Flight Attendants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether flight attendants are required to have Criminal Records Bureau checks; and if he will make a statement. [116380]

  Paul Goggins
  Flight attendants are not required to obtain a Criminal Records Bureau check.

  Heroin
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of the heroin seized in the United Kingdom originates in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [117875]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  It is estimated that over 90 per cent. of heroin seized in the United Kingdom each year originates from opium produced in Afghanistan.

  Iraq
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what measures and incentives will be in place to facilitate the return of Iraqi asylum seekers to Iraq. [117660]

  Beverley Hughes
  We are working actively to ensure that Iraqis can be assisted to return voluntarily to their homeland as soon as practicable. Many Iraqis in the United Kingdom have skills, which will be of value to the reconstruction of Iraq. The Government are committed to helping clear the way for them to do so.

  We already have the Voluntary Return and Reintegration Programme (VARRP) in place. This programme is available to all nationalities and includes Iraqis. A number of Iraqis have already approached the International Organisation for Migration and they are making arrangements for their return over the next few weeks. VARRP facilitates assisted voluntary return as well as providing additional in kind reintegration assistance in the country of origin. The reintegration assistance is worth up to an approximate value of £500.

  We are consulting United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the International Organisation for Migration, refugee sector non-governmental organisations and Iraqi communities in the United Kingdom on the type of additional programmes that will be appropriate to facilitate voluntary return to Iraq. No decisions regarding the exact nature of the return programme that might be offered has yet been made.

  Job Entries
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to his answer of 28 April 2003,Official Report, column 63W. what information on job entries is now available; and when it will be published. [118210]

  Beverley Hughes
  Information on job entries is being collected and it will be made available shortly.

  London Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many annual Board of Visitors reports he has received from London prisons for 2002–03. [116708]
  668W
  Paul Goggins
  None. Since the reporting period each year is staggered, the first batch of annual reports for 2003 are not due before September 2003. The timetable for receipt of the annual reports from the London prisons is as follows:

  Establishment

  Date due

  Belmarsh

  September 2003

  Brixton

  October 2003

  Holloway

  February 2004

  Pentonville

  May 2004

  Wandsworth

  July 2004

  Wormwood Scrubs

  August 2004

  Prison Accidents
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many accidents occurred on the prison estate to(a) employees and (b) inmates, broken down by establishment, in the last five years. [113671]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 15 May 2003]The number of accidents to employees and prisoners from April 2002 to 13 May is shown in the following tables. Until April 2002, Home Office Health and Safety Services was responsible for recording all the accident statistics for the Prison Service. In April 2002, the Prison Service Safety Section assumed responsibility for this task and changed the system to ensure that the statistics gathered met the Services needs. The information for the period up until April 2002 is being collated from Home Office records and I shall write to my hon. Friend.

  Prison service accident statistics-Accidents to staff and prisoners from April 2002 to 13 May 2003

  Staff

  Prisoners

  East Midlands (North)

  Lincoln

  53

  92

  North Sea Camp

  24

  82

  Nottingham

  39

  1

  Ranby

  51

  178

  Sudbury

  21

  68

  Whatton

  6

  25

  Total for East Midlands (North)

  194

  446

  East Midlands (south)

  Ashwell

  45

  56

  Gartree

  37

  7

  GlenParva

  107

  15

  Leicester

  34

  4

  Onley

  34

  1

  Stocken

  23

  58

  Wellingborough

  86

  48

  Total for East Midlands (South)

  366

  189 Eastern

  Eastern

  Bedford

  64

  7

  Blundeston

  24

  4

  Chelmsford

  23

  10

  Grendon

  33

  89

  Highpoint

  86

  72

  Littlehey

  41

  64

  Norwich

  113

  22

  The Mount

  40

  46

  Wayland

  63

  145

  Total for Eastern

  487

  459

  Hign Security Prisons

  Belmarsh

  291

  7

  Durham

  80

  28

  Frankland

  113

  72

  Full Sutton

  85

  23

  669W

  Prison service accident statistics-Accidents to staff and prisoners from April 2002 to 13 May 2003

  Staff

  Prisoners

  Long Lartin

  43

  36

  Wakefield

  99

  50

  Whitemoor

  69

  8

  Woodhill

  217

  104

  Total for High Security Prisons

  997

  328

  Juvenile Establishments

  Hollesley Bay

  64

  39

  Huntercombe

  95

  3

  Werrington

  85

  4

  Wetherby

  115

  10

  Total for Juvenile Establishments

  359

  56

  Kent, Surrey and Sussex

  Blantyre House

  5

  7

  Canterbury

  17

  1

  Coldingley

  10

  44

  Dover

  28

  10

  Elmley

  85

  34

  Ford

  30

  72

  Highdown

  105

  83

  Lewes

  36

  47

  Maidstone

  48

  24

  Rochester

  81

  48

  Standford Hill

  39

  65

  Swaleside

  50

  36

  Total for Kent, Surrey and Sussex

  534

  471

  Lancashire and Cumbria

  Garth

  26

  47

  Haverigg

  40

  113

  Kirkham

  27

  260

  Lancaster

  44

  72

  Lancaster Farms

  23

  20

  Preston

  125

  173

  Wymott

  60

  75

  Total for Lancashire and Cumbria

  345

  760

  London

  Brixton

  176

  20

  Feltham

  261

  76

  Latchmere House

  2

  2

  Pentonville

  186

  23

  Wandsworth

  118

  10

  Wormwood Scrubs

  138

  4

  Total for London

  881

  135

  Manchester, Mersey and Cheshire

  Buckley Hall

  38

  26

  Hindley

  268

  162

  Liverpool

  190

  27

  Manchester

  36

  69

  Risley

  95

  75

  Thorn Cross

  10

  21

  Total for Manchester, Mersey and Cheshire

  637

  380

  North East

  Acklington

  72

  79

  Castington

  73

  34

  Deerbolt

  103

  39

  Holme House

  68

  188

  Kirklevington

  9

  13

  Total for North East

  325

  353

  South West

  Bristol

  115

  67

  Channings Wood

  55

  33

  Dartmoor

  86

  18

  Dorchester

  63

  31

  Erlestoke

  31

  31

  Exeter

  105

  77

  Gloucester

  63

  7

  Guys Marsh

  49

  131

  Leyhill

  14

  61

  Portland

  57

  5

  Shepton Mallet

  6

  22

  The Verne

  28

  78

  Weare

  44

  46

  Total for South West

  716

  607

  670W

  Prison service accident statistics-Accidents to staff and prisoners from April 2002 to 13 May 2003

  Staff

  Prisoners

  Thames Valley and Hampshire

  Albany

  14

  36

  Aylesbury

  99

  53

  Bullingdon

  52

  81

  Camp Hill

  43

  26

  Haslar

  20

  8

  Kingston

  9

  7

  Parkhurst

  36

  1

  Reading

  31

  11

  Winchester

  99

  38

  Total for Thames Valley and Hampshire

  403

  261

  Wales

  Cardiff

  24

  41

  Swansea

  16

  14

  Usk/Prescoed

  10

  65

  Total for Wales

  50

  120

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  143

  74

  Blakenhurst

  50

  37

  Brinsford

  93

  2

  Featherstone

  22

  218

  Hewell Grange

  2

  17

  Shrewsbury

  56

  44

  Stafford

  73

  51

  Stoke Heath

  153

  81

  Swinfen Hall

  66

  109

  Total for West Midlands

  658

  633

  Women's Prisons and Yols

  Askham Grange

  24

  22

  Brockhill

  35

  22

  Bullwood Hall

  38

  7

  Cookham Wood

  6

  20

  Downview

  53

  60

  East Sutton Park

  12

  54

  East wood Park

  98

  62

  Foston Hall

  31

  64

  Holloway

  318

  54

  Low Newton

  106

  183

  Morton Hall

  22

  74

  New Hall

  109

  55

  Send

  1

  16

  Styal

  117

  106

  Total for Women's Prisons and YOls

  970

  840

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Everthorpe

  47

  86

  Hatfield

  2

  19

  Hull

  113

  40

  Leeds

  234

  176

  Lindholme

  99

  289

  Moorland

  134

  122

  Northallerton

  30

  46

  Wealstun

  39

  70

  Total for Yorkshire and Humberside

  698

  848

  Grand Totals: Prison Service

  8,623

  6,876

  Prison Drug Strategy
  Ms Bridget Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners have had access to treatment and support services on release in the last 12 months; and with what delay on average. [115745]

  Paul Goggins
  There are currently no comprehensive tracking systems in place to monitor access to community drug treatment and support services for prisoners on release. As part of the Criminal Justice Intervention Programme additional funding is being made available to boost throughcare and aftercare
  671W
  services. The Prison Service is working with the Home Office, National Treatment Agency and National Probation Directorate to develop tracking mechanisms.

  Sutton Volunteer Bureau
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when Barbara Payton will receive clearance to act as a counter signatory for the Sutton Volunteer Bureau under the provisions of the Police Act 1997. [115833]

  Paul Goggins
  The Criminal Records Bureau wrote to Mrs Payton on 19 May 2003 and advised her she had now been approved as a Countersignatory for Sutton Borough Volunteer Bureau. A confirmation letter quoting the required Countersignatory reference number was then issued on 22 May 2003.

  TETRA
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what representations he has received on behalf of police officers relating to possible health hazards caused by the TETRA mobile phone communication system; [117594]

  (2) if he will publish the available technical, scientific and medical data relating to the use of the TETRA mobile phone system by police forces; and if he will make a statement. [117595]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  We have received several letters from chief police officers and from the Police Federation on health concerns relating to the new TETRA mobile radio system for the police service. We have also received helpful feedback directly from police officers through a series of seminars on TETRA health issues held across the country over the last 10 months.

  The Home Office has taken advice from independent experts. The experts concluded that TETRA technology was unlikely to pose a risk to health and recommended further research to address remaining areas of uncertainty. Results from the extensive programme of work we set up in response to those recommendations are now becoming available. No effects of TETRA technology on health have been found so far.

  Updates on our TETRA health programme are regularly published on the Home Office web site http:// www.homeoffice.gov.uk/docs/tetra.html, where interim reports can be found. Full results will be published in due course in scientific journals. The same publication strategy will be adopted for the national health monitoring study of police TETRA users we have recently announced.

  Work Permits
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many in-country work permits were granted in each of the last six months for which figures are available; how many of these were allocated each month to(a) students and (b) people who had recently completed educational courses in the UK; how many were allocated each month to visa nationals; and how many were granted exceptionally to visa nationals. [116057]
  672W
  Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]Work permits are applied for by, and issued to, employers, not individuals. Work permit approvals issued in the last two quarters to employers in respect of visa nationals who were already present in the United Kingdom are as follows:

  In-country work permits issued

  Number

  October 2002

  4,050

  November 2002

  3,575

  December 2002

  3,086

  January 2003

  4,163

  February 2003

  3,516

  March 2003

  4,140

  Work Permits (UK) are unable to provide statistics which would indicate how many of these permits were issued in respect of overseas nationals who were previously present in the United Kingdom for the purposes of study; or for a purpose for which there is no provision under the Immigration Rules to switch into work permit employment and where, consequently, any decision to allow switching to take place would be considered on a discretionary basis outside the Rules.

  Youth Offending Teams
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent inspectors of youth offending teams there are; and what the professional background of each is. [115097]

  Paul Goggins
  The inspectors of youth offending teams (Yots) comprise, in terms of full-time equivalents, two inspectors from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Probation, two from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary, one from the Commission for Health Improvement, one from the Office for Standards in Education and Employment and two from the Social Services' Inspectorate. These will be complemented by some part-time support from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons, Her Majesty's Inspectorate for Education and Training in Wales and the Social Services' Inspectorate for Wales and, for developing the methodology, an independent chartered forensic psychologist.

  The inspectors of Yots all hold appropriate qualifications for their professions and they have been selected on the basis of their experience and knowledge of working with Yots. They include three former Yot managers.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Elections
  Mr. Walter
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans he has to grant voting rights to citizens of EEA countries resident in the United Kingdom at local and European elections. [116925]

  Yvette Cooper
  Under Council Directives 93/109/EC and 94/80/EC, citizens of member states of the European Union (EU) resident in the United Kingdom
  673W
  are already able to vote in European parliamentary and local elections in the United Kingdom. All EU member states are also members of the EEA. There are no plans to extend these voting rights to citizens of the member states of the EEA that are not also members of the EU.

  Agency Workers
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many agency workers have been employed by the Department in each of the last two years; and at what cost to public funds. [115200]

  Use of LCD national contract for provision of agency workers

  Financial year

  Estimated average headcount

  Expenditure £

  2001–02

  Lord Chancellor's Department and Associated Offices

  Not applicable—did not begin using contract until following year

  Not applicable—did not begin using contract until following year

  Court Service—including the Immigration Appellate Authority

  170

  2,360,000

  2002–03

  Lord Chancellor's Department and Associated Offices

  14

  276,000

  Court Service—including the Immigration Appellate Authority

  245

  4,692,000

  Census
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what plans the Department has to review the 100 year closure clause on individual census forms; and if he will make a statement. [115469]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  It is Government policy that census returns are closed to public inspection for 100 years. This was restated in the White Paper "The 2001 Census of Population 2001" (Cm 4253) para. 121, March 1999."Public confidence in the security and confidentiality of the information given in the census is paramount. Consequently, it is not intended that the Government's plans to revise legislation relating to greater access to public records, set out in White Paper proposals for a Freedom of Information Act, should affect the current period of closure for census records.'

  Criminal Cases (Payments)
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what recent assessment she has made of the effect of payments to those involved in criminal cases by journalists upon the judicial processes; and if she will make a statement. [117814]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  In 2002, the Lord Chancellor published a consultation paper proposing to ban payments to witnesses by journalists during criminal proceedings because of the risk they pose to the administration of justice. This followed recommendations by the then National Heritage Select Committee and an inter-departmental working group.

  Following the consultation and further discussions, the Press Complaints Commission and other media organisations agreed to change their own codes to achieve this ban. They also agreed to regulate, for the first time, payments to potential witnesses made before criminal proceedings begin but when they are 'likely and foreseeable'. These can only be made when they are demonstrably necessary and in the public interest, for example to expose a crime.
  674W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  My Department has a national contract for the provision of agency workers. Information regarding the number of agency workers provided to my Department under this contract and the associated expenditure is provided in the table.

  Information relating to workers employed through other agencies is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  My Department uses agency workers to meet short-term requirements and in areas where it is difficult to recruit and retain staff.

  The amended Press Code took effect on 18 March 2003. The Government have said that they will legislate to ban payments should self-regulation prove ineffective.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the total expenditure on advertising by the Department was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what the level of planned expenditure is for (i) 2003–04 and (ii) 2004–05. [114432]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested for the financial years 2001–02 and 2002–03 is set out in the following table. LCD has not yet decided upon any significant advertising spending for 2003–04 or 2004–05.

  Expenditure on advertising

  £

  Financial year

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  0

  15,800

  Court Service

  0

  31,450

  Northern Ireland Court Service

  0

  0

  Public Guardianship Office

  0

  0

  National Archives

  5,250

  4,535

  HM Land Registry

  0

  23,000

  Euro
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the Lord Chancellor received the Treasury documents relating to the five economic tests and the 18 background studies; what discussions he has held with ministerial colleagues on the tests since receipt of the documents; when he expects to complete his analysis of the documents; and what representations(a) he and (b) departmental officials will make to other Departments before a decision is reached on the economic tests. [115385]
  675W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Treasury's 18 supporting studies on EMU were sent to Cabinet Ministers on 16 May. The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are holding meetings with Cabinet Members. There was an initial discussion at Cabinet on 22 May followed by a special Cabinet meeting on 5 June. The Chancellor has today made a statement to the House of Commons.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. MacDougall
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he expects to make a decision on which constituency is to include Gibraltar for the next European elections. [117880]

  Yvette Cooper
  Section 10 of the European Parliament (Representation) Act 2003 (EPR) requires the Electoral Commission to make a recommendation to the Lord Chancellor before 1 September 2003 as to the electoral region to be combined with Gibraltar. Section 11 of the EPR Act enables the Lord Chancellor to specify the region by order, and he would expect to do so shortly after receiving the recommendation from the Electoral Commission.

  Liquor Licences
  Ms Christine Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what financial savings the Lord Chancellor's Department will make when the responsibility for issuing liquor licences is removed from magistrates. [116742]

  Yvette Cooper
  My Department has not yet undertaken a full costing but it is unlikely there will be significant savings for the Department. The licensing judges and magistrates courts currently recover part of their costs through fees, so only limited savings will be made when responsibility for issuing liquor licenses is removed from magistrates. The magistrates' and clerks' manpower on licensing will be re-deployed so as to reduce unnecessary delay in criminal proceedings.

  Some savings are expected from changes to the appeal system. Appeals against decisions made by local authorities will be heard by magistrates courts, rather than the Crown Court where the cost of an appeal sitting is greater. The view of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) is that the number of appeals to the magistrates court will not exceed the number of appeals currently handled by the Crown Court.

  During the transitional period the Department is likely to have increased costs as the courts will still be incurring the costs of enforcement without the income from renewed licenses.

  School Exclusions
  Huw Irranca-Davies
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what the cost to the legal aid system of appeals against fixed term exclusions from secondary schools in the UK was in the last 12 months. [116938]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information required to answer the question is not readily available and can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HEALTH

  Mental Health
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of progress in creating a world class mental health service, as envisaged in the Wanless Report. [117575]

  Jacqui Smith
  Good progress is being made in creating a world class mental health service, as envisaged in the Wanless Report. Early targets, set in the mental health national service framework and the NHS Plan, have been met and progress is also being made towards the remainder, including a range of specialised teams and services; new staff and new ways of working. However, we are still in the early stages of a programme of work that will take some time to realise in full.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how he will implement the proposals in the NHS document, Developing Services for carers and families of people with mental illness; and what funding he will make available for this. [115905]

  Jacqui Smith
  Implementation of the document Developing Services for Carers and Families of people with mental illness is the responsibility of commissioners and providers of health and social care mental health services. Primary care trusts also have a vital role to play in identifying and supporting carers of people with mental health problems.

  The NHS Plan published in July 2000 provided for extra annual investment of over £300 million by 2003–04 to support plans for modernisation and additional resources are delivered within general allocation; funds which are not ring-fenced. This arrangement, consistent with the principles set out in Shifting the Balance of Power, permits resources to be more closely matched to the needs of local people, and enables primary care trusts to take full account of strengths or gaps in local services. Strategic health authorities performance manage PCTs for their responsibilities in this regard, consistent with national guidance and the objectives set out in their local delivery plans.

  The National Institute for Mental Health in England (NIMHE), including its development centres, are supporting local services and communities to implement this guidance. To help to this, NIMHE will help to share positive practice and support liaison at a national level.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children under 18 are being treated by adult mental health services in the Mersey Care NHS Trust area. [116287]

  Jacqui Smith
  On 30 May 2003,31 children under 18 were being cared for by adult mental health services in the Mersey Care National Health Service Trust area.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of funding per capita is being spent by(a) Blackpool Primary Care Trust and (b) Wyre Primary Care Trust on child and adolescent mental health services in 2003–04; and what the average spending per capita is of primary care trusts in England. [116449]
  677W
  Jacqui Smith
  The first set of financial returns for Blackpool and Wyre Primary Care Trusts will be for 2002–03, which are not yet available. The child and adolescent psychiatry services offered by Blackpool and Wyre PCTs in 2002–03, were in 2001–02 offered by Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Community national health service trust.

  Information on expenditure by Blackpool. Wyre and Fylde Community NHS Trust, is shown in the tables:

  Attribution Data Set adjusted 1998 based mid 2001 population projections

  Number

  Total population

  50,180,601

  Population (0–14-year olds)

  10,042,683

  North West Lancashire (0–14-year olds)

  88,069

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  £

  Primary care trusts

  NHS trusts

  Total

  Expenditure—2001–02

  6,981,200

  184,985,938

  191,967,138

  Expenditure per capita (full population)

  0.14

  3.69

  3.83

  Expenditure per capita (0–14-year olds)

  0.70

  18.42

  19.12

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde community trust

  £

  Expenditure—2001–02

  1,329,639

  Expenditure per capita (full population)

  0.03

  Expenditure per capita (0–14-year olds—)

  0.13

  Expenditure per capita (0–14 year olds— North West Lancashire health authority)

  15.10

  Mental health (including child and adolescent psychiatry)

  £

  Primary care trusts

  NHS trusts

  Total

  Expenditure—2001–02

  188,058,474

  4,387,360,642

  4,575,419,116

  Expenditure per capita (full population)

  3.75

  87.43

  91.18

  Note:

  A different set of population projections have been used in order to supply a population split for North West Lancashire Health Authority. Children have been classified as up to 14 years old.

  Source:

  Health Authority Revenue Resource Limits Exposition Book, 2001–2002. The Department of Health.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what level of funding per capita is being spent by(a) Blackpool Primary Care Trust and (b) Wyre Primary Care Trust on services for adults with mental health problems in the current financial year; and what the average spending per capita is of primary care trusts in England [116450]
  678W
  Jacqui Smith
  The first set of financial returns for Blackpool and Wyre Primary Care Trusts will be for 2002–03, which are not yet available. The adult mental health services offered by Blackpool and Wyre PCTs in 2002–03, were in 2001–02 provided by the Blackpool Wyre and Fylde Community national health service trust.

  Information on the expenditure by the Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Community NHS trust is shown in the table.

  Attribution data set adjusted 1998 based mid 2001 population projections

  Number

  Total population

  50,180,601

  Population—Adults (over 14-years old)

  40,137,917

  North West Lancashire health authority adults

  374,174

  Mental health services

  £

  Primary care trusts

  NHS trusts

  Total

  Expenditure—2001–02

  188,058,474

  4,387,360,642

  4,575,419,116

  Expenditure per capita (full population)

  3.75

  87.43

  91.18

  Expenditure per capita (adults)

  4.69

  109.31

  113.99

  Blackpool, Wyre and Fylde Community Trust—2001–02

  £

  Expenditure—mental health adult services

  20,974,938

  Expenditure per capita (full population)

  0.42

  Expenditure per capita (0–14-year olds)

  0.52

  Expenditure per capita (adults—North West Lancashire health authority)

  56.06

  Source:

  Health Authority Revenue Resource Limits Exposition Book, 2001–2002. The Department of Health.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the level of spending on child and adolescent mental health services was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2002–03.[116451]

  Jacqui Smith
  The tables, based on returns from trusts, show expenditure for 1996–97 and 2001–02 on child and adolescent psychiatry for in-patients, out-patients and day care patients. Comparable expenditure for 2002–03 will be available this September in provisional form a nd the fully validated figures in February 2004.

  Other data now available from the new national child and adolescent mental health service mapping exercise, details of which can be found at www.dur.ac.uk/service.mapping/CAMH/, shows expenditure for 2002–03 on specialist child and adolescent mental health services at tiers 2–4 of £241,289,112.

  679W

  Child and adolescent psychiatry expenditure—England 1996–97 and 2001–02

  £

  In-patients expenditure

  Out- patients expenditure

  Day care expenditure

  Total expenditure

  1996–971

  NHS Trust

  45,357,584

  58,825,911

  13,358,981

  117,542,476

  2001–022,3

  NHS Trust

  60,385,645

  105,272,276

  19,328,017

  184,985,938

  Primary Care Trust

  1,114,767

  5,866,433

  0

  6,981,200

  Total

  61,500,412

  111,138,709

  19,328,017

  191,967,138

  Sources:

  1Annual financial returns for NHS Trusts

  2 Annual financial returns for NHS Trusts

  3 Annual financial returns for Primary Care Trusts

  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health why schizophrenia patients on anti-psychotic medication are required to pay prescription charges. [116933]

  Mr. Lammy
  Prescription charges are not payable by schizophrenia 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.

  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.

  Social Services Finance (Scotland)
  Mr. Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the liability of councils in England and Wales to reimburse the costs incurred by Scottish local authorities' social services departments in processing social services assessments on individuals from England and Wales who are placed in residential institutions in Scotland and referred to the Children's Reporter in Scotland. [115826]

  Jacqui Smith
  Responsibility for the costs of assessing and meeting the needs of a child will depend on the circumstances of an individual case.

  Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  Jonathan Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on diagnosis of adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. [116903]

  Jacqui Smith
  Attention deficit disorder (ADD) and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have been considered primarily as disorders of childhood, and are described in the International Classification of Mental and Behavioural Disorders (ICD-10) and the U.S. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), where clinical descriptions and diagnostic guidelines are to be found. Diagnosis is clearly a matter for the responsible medical practitioner, but I understand that the position concerning ADD/ADHD in adults is less clear. I gather that evidence is accumulating that the disorder found in childhood may persist into adulthood and in some cases be first diagnosed in adulthood.

  Cheshire and Merseyside SHA
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, how many people from each parliamentary constituency in the area(a) applied and (b) were interviewed for the post of chair of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority. [112300]

  Jacqui Smith
  [pursuant to her reply, 15 May 2003, c. 413 W]I regret that my response was incorrect. The final paragraph of the response should have read as follows."Following sifting of these applications, interviews were held with people living in the following constituencies:

  Delon—one

  Southport—one

  St. Helens South—one

  Warrington North—one

  Wirral West—one"

  Cleft Lip and Palate Services
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals for future arrangements for the provision of cleft lip and palate services will be put to residents in the North West; and what arrangements will be made to encourage those in health-deprived areas to participate in a consultation on these services. [116099]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 4 June 2003]The three strategic health authorities in the north west—Greater Manchester, Cheshire and Merseyside and Cumbria and Lancashire—held a joint board and agreed to conduct a joint consultation on the options for the future delivery of cleft lip and palate services in the north west.

  It is proposed that one consultation document will be published and circulated to a wide range of organisations in accordance with the new arrangements for patient and public involvement.

  It is anticipated that the formal consultation will commence at the end of June/beginning of July 2003.

  Clinical Negligence
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on introducing a no-fault clinical negligence compensation system. [116893]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Chief Medical Officer, Professor Sir Liam Donaldson, has reviewed a wide range of options to tackle the complex issues involved in improving the present system for handling clinical negligence claims, including no fault compensation; these are under consideration by Ministers. I know the outcome of the Chief Medical Officer's review is eagerly awaited. We hope to publish our proposals for reform soon.

  Commission for Healthcare Audit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection. [116071]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, which includes provisions to establish the new Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection (CHAI), is currently before Parliament.
  681W
  CHAI's principal role will be to carry out a fully independent assessment of the quality of both public and private healthcare in order to encourage improvement. Subject to parliamentary approval of the Bill's provisions, we intend that CHAI will be operational from April 2004. A shadow chair, Professor Sir Ian Kennedy, and 10 shadow commissioners have so far been appointed by the independent National Health Service Appointments Commission to lead in establishing the new body.

  Continuing Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) pursuant to his answer of 8 May 2003,Official Report, column 867W, on continuing care funding, from how many strategic health authorities further clarification has been requested; and what the reasons are for not publishing the information received from SHAs about their continuing care policies; [115569]

  (2) what the procedure is for estimating the numbers of people who may have been wrongly denied continuing care; which organisations were consulted when drawing up the procedure; and if he will place a copy of the procedure in the Library; [115568]

  (3) pursuant to his Answer of 21 May 2003, Official Report, column 852W, on continuing care, whether the formula he is using to estimate the number of people who were refused continuing care uses local information about the nursing home population. [116859]

  Jacqui Smith
  Strategic health authorities (SHAs) have estimated the number of people who may have been wrongly denied full national health service funding for continuing care based on local information. The Department in discussion with SHAs suggested a number of factors which could be taken into account, including the local nursing home population. There is no intention to publish the procedure for estimating the number. Further clarification has been requested from all SHAs. The Department of Health does not routinely publish details of estimated costs of a specific service.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 21 May 2003,Official Report, column 852W, on continuing care, what additional information was required from strategic health authorities following the deadline for reviewing existing continuing care criteria; and if he will make a statement. [116860]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have asked strategic health authorities for evidence of their legal advice taken when agreeing new continuing care criteria.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for West Chelmsford of 10 February concerning the practical problems facing patients suffering from mental health problems. [117662]

  Jacqui Smith
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member on 2 June.

  Dentistry
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to improve the provision of NHS dentistry in Herefordshire; and if he will make a statement. [116883]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is the intention of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill to better match the provision of primary dental services with local oral health needs through local commissioning of the service. It is our intention that funding for primary dental services will be allocated direct to primary care trusts (PCTs), so that they will be in a position to secure primary dental services for their population.

  Herefordshire PCI will receive a cash increase of more than 30 per cent., over the period 2003 to 2006. The Government has already invested over £2 million in the Herefordshire dental access centre, which operates from six sites throughout the county.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 22 May 2003,Official Report, column 966–67W, on dentistry, how many residents within (a) Portsmouth, (b) Fareham and Gosport and (c) Southampton City primary care trusts have been unable to register with an NHS dentist in the last year; and what assessment he has made of the likely timescale for all residents within the Portsmouth PCT area having access to an NHS dentist. [116915]

  Mr. Lammy
  This information is not held centrally. Information is collected on the number of registrations in each primary care trust (PCT) area and on the number of calls to NHS Direct which meet the locally set distance standards.53 per cent. of adults and 66 per cent. of children in Portsmouth PCT were registered with a national health service dentist at 28 February 2003.
  32 per cent. of adults and 56 per cent. of children in Fareham and Gosport PCT were registered with a NHS dentist at 28 February 2003.
  47 per cent. of adults and 60 per cent. of children in Southampton City PCT were registered with a NHS dentist at 28 February 2003.

  Not all patients seek routine access to NHS dental care. Some patients prefer to be seen on an unregistered basis under the occasional treatment arrangements or in a dental access centre.

  There is a personal dental services pilot in Southampton City PCT incorporating a dental access centre. It treated 9,980 patients in the year ending March 2003. There is also a personal dental service pilot in Fareham and Gosport PCT, which treated 2,156 patients in the year ending March 2003.

  The latest information available from NHS Direct suggest most callers in the three PCT areas are being put in touch with a dentist offering NHS treatment within local distance standards.

  The Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill, currently before Parliament, proposes local commissioning of primary dental services. It is anticipated that, through local commissioning, PCTs would be better placed to address local access issues as they arise. The new arrangements are expected to come into effect in 2005. It is also the intention of the Bill to

  683W
  make NHS dentistry a more attractive option to general dental practitioners by providing them with a more predictable level of income, allowing them to work differently and incorporating them into the NHS family.

  Diabetes
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he is taking to support NHS trusts in implementing the National Service Framework for diabetes. [116899]

  Mr. Lammy
  We published the "National Service Framework for Diabetes: Deliver/Strategy" in January this year. The delivery strategy offers a framework for the national health service to deliver the national targets.

  Underpinning national action to support local implementation includes:
  the appointment of a national clinical director for diabetes, to lead progress and provide support to the NHS
  a "Diabetes Information Strategy" to develop information systems so that information is easily available to support people with diabetes and professional carers
  a workforce programme to develop new roles and new skills
  National Screening Committee pilots to test the practicalities of systematic screening for Type 2 diabetes in high-risk populations in primary care
  NHS Modernisation Agency help to local NHS and partner organisations
  We have also announced funding of £27 million to provide digital cameras and related equipment to support a programme of screening people with diabetes for the signs of diabetic eye disease.

  In addition, £200,000 has been awarded to Diabetes UK to work with the National Clinical Director on a package of support to ensure people with diabetes are fully involved in helping the local NHS to plan, design and deliver diabetes services.

  A copy of the delivery strategy is available in the Library.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on major screening programmes for diabetes in the NHS; and how they will be funded. [116900]

  Mr. Lammy
  "Improvement, Expansion and Reform: the next three years", the planning and performance framework for 2003–06, includes a specific national target. It states that, by 2006, a minimum of 80 per cent. of people with diabetes are to be offered screening for the early detection and treatment, if needed, of diabetic retinopathy as part of a systematic programme that meets national standards, rising to 100 per cent. coverage of those at risk of retinopathy by end 2007.

  Funding totalling £27 million for the national health service to purchase state-of-the-art digital cameras and related equipment for screening people with diabetes for the signs of diabetic retinopathy was announced on 22 April 2003.
  684W
  The Department of Health is funding a pilot project, which will inform the policy development on screening for Type 2 diabetes, focusing on those populations among whom the prevalence of diabetes and risk factors is highest.

  Digital Hearing Aids
  John Cryer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the age profile of hearing aid users who have been using analogue hearing aids for more than three years. [116686]

  Jacqui Smith
  Although we have made no detailed age profile, as part of the modernising hearing aid services project a sample was taken of just over 5,000 patients who had been using hearing aids for about three years or more before the project began. This showed a mean age of 70 years with a standard deviation of 14 years, that is, just over two thirds of patients in the sample were aged between 56 and 84 years.

  Direct Payment Schemes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health which authorities operate direct payment schemes; and when each started to do so. [116458]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not held centrally.

  The most recent data outlining the number of direct payments recipients by local council is in the Autumn Position Statement, September 2002. Further details can be found on the direct payments website at ww.doh. gov. uk/directpayments/index.htm.

  From 8 April 2003, The Community Care, Services for Carers and Children's Services (Direct Payments) (England) Regulations 2003 requires councils to offer direct payments to people using community care services who have an assessed need and are able to manage them (alone or with assistance).

  We have a performance indicator which serves as a further incentive and a strong challenge to encourage progress in this field. For 2003–04 we will be introducing a key performance indicator (KPI) that will mean that councils' overall performance will be reflected in their successful or otherwise implementation of direct payments.

  Domiciliary Oxygen Services
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will announce the results of the review of domiciliary oxygen services initiated in March 2000. [115564]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 4 June 2003]I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 362W.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) when there will be an announcement of the result of the review of domiciliary oxygen services initiated in March 2002; [117792]
  685W
  (2) what conclusions have been reached concerning provision of ambulatory oxygen for domiciliary use; and whether scope exists to improve the efficiency of domiciliary oxygen through the prescription of conserving devices. [117793]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) on 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 362W.

  Eggs
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the(a) quantity, (b) quality and (c) source of non-UK produced eggs used by hospital catering services. [115760]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]All eggs contracted for by the National Health Service Purchasing and Supply Agency (NHSPASA) are from United Kingdom sources.

  While the majority of NHS trusts use the NHSPASA contract, there may be some who buy eggs from non-contract sources. Information from trusts who buy eggs from their own sources is not held centrally.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many elderly people were hospitalised as a result of cold in(a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in each year since 1997. [114759]

  Mr. Lammy
  I am unable to provide the figures asked for. The numbers of cases of elderly people hospitalised as a result of cold (hypothermia) within the two areas, for each year, are low. Under the terms of use for these data, including the Data Protection Act, figures under six are not disclosed due to the potential for identification for the patient involved.

  Endometriosis
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much government funding is provided to groups working to help sufferers of endometriosis. [116362]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department provides funding to voluntary organisations in the field of women's health through the Section 64 Scheme. The scheme provides funding to voluntary organisations whose activities support Department of Health policy objectives.

  Funding is provided to a wide range of general women's health organisations, supporting women with a variety of conditions. The Pennell Initiative for Women's Health has been awarded £7,000 in 2003–04. Women's Health Concern will receive £12,000 in 2003–04. Women's Health will receive a core grant of £15,000 and in addition, a project grant of £10,000 in 2003–04. The Department also provides funding to organisations that focus on specific conditions, such as endometriosis. The National Endometriosis Society (NES) will receive £25,000 from the Department in 2003–04 as a contribution towards the cost of its core activities. In the autumn, the NES and all the other
  686W
  organisations in the women's health field will have the opportunity to apply for further funding under the scheme for the 2004–05 round.

  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the level of funding of endometriosis services by health authority area over each of the past 10 years. [116365]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not collected centrally. It is for primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much funding has been provided for research into endometriosis in each of the last 10 years. [116366]

  Jacqui Smith
  The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatments for disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department for Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC can provide figures for spend on research relevant to endometriosis only for the last five years and these are shown in the table.

  £ million

  1997–98

  1.7

  1998–99

  1.8

  1999–2000

  1.8

  2000–01

  1.2

  2001–02

  1.2

  These figures cover research on both endometriosis and the general physiology of the endometrium.

  The MRC always welcomes high quality applications from the scientific community for support into any aspect of biomedical research and these are judged in open competition with other demands on funding.

  The Department of Health funds the National Health Service research and development programme, which aims to identify NHS needs for research and to commission research to meet those needs. Commissioning is undertaken through national programmes of research, including the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme. The report of a HTA project costing nearly £0.5 million on the management of menorrhagia was published in February 2003. Menorrhagia is sometimes associated with endometriosis. The report of a £0.3 million HTA project on diagnosis of endometrial abnormality is expected to be published in November 2003.

  Fostered Children
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on Government plans to oblige children who are being fostered to attend school; [116802]

  (2) what estimate he has made of the proportion of excluded school children who were fostered in the last year for which figures are available. [116801]
  687W
  Jacqui Smith
  The information sought is not available centrally. However, data on exclusions among children looked after by local authorities, up to year ending 2002 are in the table. As 'corporate parents' the local authority is responsible for ensuring the attendance at school of looked after children. The local education authority and social services must draw up a personal education plan for every looked after child. This should reflect the emotional and behavioural needs of the child as well as their achievements at school and provide a record of their attendance.

  Number of children looked after at 30 September 2000 and 2001 who had been looked after for at least 12 months, and number of permanent exclusions from school.

  Number

  Percentages1

  2000

  2001

  2000

  2001

  Number of children looked after at 30 September who had been looked after for at least twelve months

  42,200

  43,400

  —

  —

  and of these:

  Number eligible for full-time schooling

  33,100

  33,800

  —

  —

  and of these:

  Number of permanent exclusions from school2

  490

  450

  1.5

  1.3

  1 Expressed as a percentage of the number eligible for full-time schooling

  2 If a child was permanently excluded more than once in the previous school year, each occasion has been counted.

  Hospital Food
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what additional resources his Department has given to(a) strategic health authorities, (b) primary care trusts and (c) NHS trusts to implement phase II of the Better Hospital Food Programme. [116861]

  Mr. Lammy
  An additional £6 million has been allocated for improvements to food services in 2003–04, and details on allocation of resources are currently under consideration.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what targets his Department has set under phase II of the Better Hospital Food Programme for the(a) quality and (b) availability of drinks at ward level; and how improvements will be monitored; [116862]

  (2) what targets his Department has set under phase II of the Better Hospital Food Programme for food and drinks services (a) for children and young adults and (b) in accident and emergency departments; and how improvements will be monitored. [116863]

  Mr. Lammy
  No new targets have been set under phase II of the Better Hospital Food programme.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how his Department will assess the way the NHS buys its food to ensure that NHS trusts are getting the right kind of quality for the very best price, as set out in phase II of the Better Hospital Food Programme. [116864]

  Mr. Lammy
  NHS Estates, in conjunction with the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency, will examine key aspects of commercial food procurement and logistics 688W
  systems to assess what lessons can be learned and transferred to the national health service with the aim of reducing costs and improving quality wherever possible.

  Legal Action
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on NHS trusts suing employees following legal action in which the trust accepted liability for the actions of those employees; if he will require NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts not to take such action; and if he will make a statement on the position of the National Health Service Litigation Authority with regard to this. [116840]

  Mr. Lammy
  Guidance has been issued to the national health service concerning arrangements for handling clinical negligence claims against NHS staff, NHS Indemnity—Arrangements for Handling Clinical Negligence Claims Against NHS Staff, HSG(96)48. The guidance contains an express provision against NHS bodies seeking to recover any proportion of the costs incurred in settling clinical negligence claims from health care professionals or others covered by NHS Indemnity:"They (NHS bodies) should not seek to recover their costs either in part or in full from the health care professional concerned or from any indemnities they may have."

  Subject to Parliamentary approval, the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill will provide for NHS foundation trusts to have access to schemes administered by the NHS Litigation Authority on the same basis as NHS trusts.

  LIFT Scheme
  Janet Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget is of the LIFT scheme in East Lancashire in(a) 2002–03, (b) 2003–04 and (c) 2004–05; and whether this funding is time-limited. [116130]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health has provided enabling funds amounting to £7.7 million in East Lancashire.

  The local investment finance trust (LIFT) schemes have also required project management and administration support. This is a total one-off cost of around £288,000, to be spent over 2002–03 and 2003–04.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the budget is of the LIFT scheme in North West Lancashire in(a) 2003–04 and (b) 2004–05; and whether this funding is time-limited. [116448]

  Jacqui Smith
  Currently, there is no local investment finance trust (LIFT) scheme in operation in North West Lancashire.

  Long-term Care
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 21 May 2003,Official Report, columns 855–56W, on Long-term care, how much his Department has allocated to publicise the need for

  689W
  individuals to assess whether they or a relative failed to be given continuing care between 1996 and 2003, as set out in HC399. [116857]

  Jacqui Smith
  All strategic health authorities will be taking reasonable steps to ensure their local population is aware that a review is taking place. No additional Departmental resources have been allocated for this exercise.

  Maternity Services
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what guidance he has issued to hospital maternity departments to enable women to give birth in positions other than lying down; [114727]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the number of Caesarean deliveries in each of the last six years where such interventions might not have been necessary had the mother been advised of positions for natural delivery other than lying down in bed. [114728]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Health has issued no specific guidance to hospital maternity departments on birthing positions and no such assessment has been made of caesarean section deliveries. The safety of the woman is paramount and all decisions about the birth, including positions during labour, should be decided by the woman in consultation with her midwife or doctor.

  We have recently given maternity units an extra £100 million to improve maternity unit environments. Some of these improvements will include additional privacy, space or equipment to facilitate a variety of birthing positions.

  ME
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance his Department gives to the NHS about the treatment of ME. [117202]

  Jacqui Smith
  We have issued no guidance to the National Health Service on the treatment of patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME).

  We are, however, taking steps to improve services for patients with this condition. On 12 May, we announced funding of £8.5 million that will be used to develop services for people with CFS/ME. In July, health organisations will be invited to bid for development funds to set up centres of expertise to develop clinical care, support clinical research and expand education and training programmes for health care professionals and to establish satellite community multidisciplinary teams. The first phase of development will commence in April 2004. We have issued no guidance to hospital trusts and Primary Care Trusts on the provision of services to patients with CFS/ME.

  The main Government agency for research into the causes and treatment of disease is the Medical Research Council (MRC), which receives its funding from the Department of Trade and Industry via the Office of Science and Technology. The MRC published a research strategy for CFS/ME on 1 May.
  690W
  The strategy will enable researchers and funders to develop research proposals on all aspects of this illness. It was developed by an independent research advisory group in response to a request from the Chief Medical Officer and was informed by contributions from patients, carers, charities, researchers and clinicians via a consultation exercise in summer 2002.

  The MRC has announced two initiatives in response to the strategy. One is a notice to the research community welcoming high quality proposals across the entire spectrum of CFS/ME research. The other is a scientific meeting to discuss the potential to use existing UK resources and infrastructures to undertake epidemiological studies in this country. In addition, the MRC announced funding, on 15 May 2003, for two trials that will look at the effectiveness of various treatments for CFS/ME. The results of these trials will help patients and their doctors to choose the best treatment. These complementary trials will assess a variety of treatments and in doing so will both help address important issues for those with CFS/ME.

  The first trial known as PACE (Pacing, Activity and Cognitive behaviour therapy: a randomised Evaluation) will make the first assessment of a treatment choice popular with patients called 'Pacing'. The second trial, known as FINE, (Fatigue Intervention by Nurses Evaluation) will test two different treatments that are particularly suited to helping reach those who are too ill to attend a specialist clinic as patients will be treated by nurses in their own homes.

  Medical Indemnity
  Mr. Hunter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will take measures to ensure that commercial providers of clinical indemnity to UK doctors and dentists are required to provide indemnity on an insured and regulated basis. [115900]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]Professional indemnity should ensure that patients who have suffered harm receive the compensation to which they are entitled. Indemnity cover should be occurrence based; that is, claims are met that arise from events which occurred when the clinician was covered but only later come to light, even if this is after the period of cover has ceased. Experience in the United Kingdom is that proper indemnity cover can be provided through membership of a defence society or a suitable insurance policy.

  Neurology
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on neurology. [118528]

  Jacqui Smith
  There is a wide range of initiatives under way to improve services for patients with neurological conditions. These include the development of the national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions that will focus on neurological disease, as well as brain injury and spinal injury. It will aim to set general standards that will improve the quality of treatment and care for all people living with these conditions. Publication of the NSF is currently planed for 2004 with implementation starting in 2005.
  691W
  The Modernisation Agency has been awarded £1.2 million funding to explore the ways in which the organisation and delivery of neurology services can be improved.

  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) is currently developing clinical guidelines for the diagnosis, management and treatment of Parkinson's disease in primary and secondary care; the diagnosis and management of epilepsy in children and adults; and the management of multiple sclerosis.

  In February 2003, the Department published Improving Services for People with Epilepsy, in response to the NICE national clinical audit of epilepsy-related death (May 2002). Local health communities have been encouraged to review their epilepsy services against the audit and the epilepsy action plan and address any shortfalls as part of local planning arrangements and priorities.

  NHS Appointments Commission
  Mr. Kevan Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what form of annual appraisal is undertaken of the performance of the regional commissioners of the NHS Appointments Commission; [116581]

  (2) when the term of office of the Northern and Yorkshire commissioner of the NHS Appointments Commission is due for renewal; and what the process is for consulting on reappointment. [116580]

  Mr. Lammy
  All national health service appointments commissioners are appraised formally on an annual basis by the chair of the Commission.

  The term of office of Mr. John Marshall as Commissioner for Northern and Yorkshire comes to an end on 30 September 2003. Mr. Marshall will not be seeking re-appointment. The post will be advertised shortly and filled in accordance with the procedures laid down by the Commissioner for Public Appointment.

  Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Chief Executive of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority has appeared before the scrutiny committee of a local authority in the past year; and if he will list the authorities. [112792]

  Jacqui Smith
  The chief executive of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority has not been asked to appear before the overview and scrutiny committees (OSC) of any local authority. However, relationships between the OSCs and the national health service in Cheshire and Merseyside are well established. In practice, most of the contact between OSCs and the NHS in Cheshire and Merseyside is with primary care trusts, which have responsibility for commissioning services and overall public health for its area.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what training the chair of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority has received on dealing with complaints; [112796]

  (2) what training courses the chair of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority has attended since her appointment; [112795]
  692W
  (3) what training the chair of Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority has received on the role of an hon. Member. [112797]

  Jacqui Smith
  Training material is provided by the NHS Appointments Commission to all new national health service chairs and non executive directors. This material refers to the importance of right hon. and hon. Members as key contacts on strategic and operational matters and reinforces their role in representing the interests of their constituents.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the names and job titles of those who carried out the interviews for the post of Chief Executive of the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority. [113088]

  Jacqui Smith
  This information is not available in the format requested.

  At the time when the chief executive posts for the strategic health authorities (SHAs) were advertised, the boundaries had not been identified. Candidates were therefore required to express an interest in the following areas: Eastern; London; North West; Northern and Yorkshire; South East; and South West.

  As such, no candidates expressed an interest in, or were interviewed for the Cheshire and Merseyside SHA.

  Overseas Treatment
  Mr. Brazier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many operations have been carried out in France under the NHS overseas treatment scheme; what the medical outcomes were; what proportion of operations resulted in medical complaints; and what the cost was of each category of operation. [114683]

  Mr. Hutton [holding answer 22 May 2003]
  Since the pilot, a total of 245 orthopaedic patients have been treated in France as part of the overseas treatment programme.

  The process of post-operative assessment begins with a post-operative clinic held in the United Kingdom by the overseas consultant surgeon. These are usually held four to 12 weeks following surgery. It would not possible, therefore, to provide a complete record of clinical outcomes, as some post-operative clinics have not yet taken place.

  The Department of Health does not routinely collect information about the post-operative complication rates arising after surgery for patients treated abroad. In the future, all orthopaedic patients treated overseas will have the required information added to the recently established national joint registry. National Health Service organisations may collect and analyse this kind of information, among other indicators of quality, as part of their local clinical governance arrangements designed to assure and continuously improve the quality of care for all NHS patients. The NHS is responsible for ensuring that NHS patients receive high clinical standards of care wherever they are treated.

  A procurement process identifying spare capacity abroad is currently active, so the costs of specific procedures abroad are commercially sensitive. However, prices are comparable to spot purchasing in the UK private sector.

  Patient Discharges
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many delayed discharges of patients there were in the Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust in the last quarter for which figures are available; and what the figures were for the preceding four quarters. [116768]

  Jacqui Smith
  Delayed transfer of care figures are published quarterly on a primary care trust basis and are available in the Library.

  Patient Records
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health who will have(a) ownership and (b) control of a patient record when electronic patient records are introduced. [116874]

  Mr. Lammy
  Patient medical records are owned by the national health service.

  Physical custody and control of patient medical records is normally the responsibility of the treating practice or trust. Electronic records may physically be held by third party service organisations. In all cases, storage of, and access to records is subject to NHS security policy and standards.

  Access to the content of patient medical records, whether electronic or paper, is subject to NHS security and confidentiality policy, in particular Health Service Circular HSC1988/089 "Implementing the Caldicott Report", and the provisions of the Data Protection Act (1998) and the Health and Social Care Act (2001).

  Contingency Planning
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in hospital accident and emergency departments in the East Midlands region have been issued with the newly designed protective suit for use in response to nuclear, biological or chemical attack by terrorists; and how many of those staff have so far received specialist training in the response to such incidents. [116437]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]The East Midlands region is served by 13 accident and emergency departments. Each of those Departments has 16 of the protective suits. Staff training is ongoing.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of his Department. [109477]

  Mr. Lammy
  Monitoring progress towards the Department's public service agreement targets is undertaken by a wide variety of staff at all levels of the organisation.

  Retinal Cameras
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding he is making available for retinal cameras in the NHS; and how many cameras this sum will fund. [116901]
  694W
  Mr. Lammy
  Funding totalling £27 million for the national health service to purchase state of the art digital cameras and related equipment for screening people with diabetes for the signs of diabetic retinopathy was announced on 22 April. We anticipate this will provide one camera per 100,000 population.

  Unused Drugs
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if his Department has made an assessment of whether anti-tamper containers would be of use for reducing expenditure on unused drugs; [117012]

  (2) whether his Department has made an assessment of which drugs are most commonly returned to the NHS unused; [117013]

  (3) whether his Department has made an estimate of the cost of unused drugs returned to the NHS each year. [117014]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is estimated that unused medicines returned to pharmacies are probably worth £100 million per year. Although information is collected on which primary care trusts have schemes in place for the collection and disposal of waste medicines, we do not collect information on the kinds of drugs that are returned to pharmacies unused.

  Anti tamper containers would not be of use for reducing expenditure on unused drugs since, once medicines have been dispensed, they cannot be reused. The reasons for this include hygiene and safety. It is also not possible to guarantee that any returned medicines have been stored appropriately in patients' homes.

  Voluntary Organisations
  Mr. Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding programmes are operated by his Department to support voluntary organisations working with young people; and what the level of support has been over the last three years. [116496]

  Mr. Lammy
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]The Department gives grants to voluntary organisations working with young people.

  The main support, given through grants to national voluntary organisations working in the health and social care fields, is under the Section 64 General Scheme of grants (Section 64 of the Health and Public Services Act 1968). Grants for those organisations working with young people are shown in the table.

  £

  Policy Area

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Child care/child abuse

  3,866,109

  2,688,770

  2,739,973

  Child health

  632,013

  958,102

  1,775,797

  Waiting Times (Hull)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what methods are used to calculate patient waiting times at the Acute Assessment Unit at Hull Royal Infirmary. [116736]
  695W
  Jacqui Smith
  Waiting times for admission to the acute assessment unit (AAU) at the Hull Royal Infirmary are included as part of the data collected by Hull and East Yorkshire Hospitals Trust showing the length of time patients spend in accident and emergency before being admitted, discharged or transferred. Once a patient has been admitted to the AAU, they are no longer classed as being in A&E.

  The AAU at Hull Royal is not a part of the A&E department. It is a medical assessment area where patients are managed according to the individual patient's clinical needs.

  These figures are collected using the patient administration system.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Administration Running Costs
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the monthly running costs of(a) the Northern Ireland Assembly, (b) Members of the Assembly and (c) the Assembly administration have been since the Assembly was dissolved. [117204]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Assembly was dissolved on 28 April. The monthly running costs based on financial transactions for May 2003 are as follows:

  £000

  Assembly Secretariat—staffing

  785

  Assembly Secretariat—running costs

  408

  Former MLAs—salary costs

  217

  Former MLAs—staffing

  588

  All other Member/Party costs

  172

  Total monthly costs

  2,170

  Belfast Regeneration Office
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications have been received by the Belfast Regeneration Office; how long it takes to process each application on average; and how many applications have taken six months or more to process. [116834]

  Mr. Browne
  The following table relates to applications received by Belfast Regeneration Office during the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003.

  Applications

  Total number of applications received by BRO

  522

  Average length of time it takes to process an application (months)

  3.8

  Number of applications which have taken six months to process

  52

  Childminders
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what training prospective childminders must complete before becoming registered with health trusts in Northern Ireland. [116968]

  Mr. Browne
  Article 125 of the Children (NI) Order 1995 sets out the requirements which an HSS Trust must impose on a person's registration and with which the registered person must comply.

  While some HSS Trusts make available to prospective childminding applicants pre-registration training, there is no mandatory requirement that prospective childminders must have completed any specified training before becoming registered with a Health and Social Services Trust.

  Disabled People
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what events are planned to mark the European Year of Disabled People in Northern Ireland. [115984]

  Mr. Browne
  An on-going rolling programme of events and initiatives is being taken forward to mark the European Year of People with Disabilities (EYPD) in Northern Ireland. This started with the widely publicised official launch of EYPD in Grosvenor House Belfast on 22 January 2003. Since then, Government have made available £100,000 to support 22 small, local projects in Northern Ireland. This adds to the £222,000 awarded to 12 Northern Ireland projects from the UK fund for the Year. These projects will make a significant contribution to the objectives of the Year, which are to increase awareness of rights and increase participation of people with disability in Northern Ireland.

  Examples of projects being undertaken include the Compass Advocacy Group Regional Development Project, which received funding to establish a comprehensive network of user-led self-advocacy groups in each Health Board area for people with learning disabilities; and the Circles Network, a Northern Ireland Partnership in Policy Making Programme, which received funding to work in partnership with the four Health Boards to facilitate a range of leadership/empowerment courses for disabled people and for the parents and carers of disabled people.

  These and other regional and local activities are being co-ordinated in partnership with the Equality Commission, local government, the voluntary and business sectors and trade unions.

  A list of events and activities has been placed in the Library of the House and this will be updated throughout the Year as plans are finalised. Information will also be published on the website www.eypdni.gov.uk.

  European Year of People with Disabilities

  Schedule of planned activities and events in Northern Ireland (as at 2 June 2003)

  22 January 2003—Official launch of the European Year of People with Disabilities in The Grosvenor House. A performance-based fun and celebratory event for

  697W
  approximately 200 guests. The production of a vox-pop video, which is being used by external organisations as an awareness raising tool.

  24 February 2003 onwards—Deaf Awareness and Basic Sign Language Skills

  Training—series of staff workshops on dealing with people with hearing impairments.

  5 April 2003—Amicus—Disability Awareness and "Disability Champions in the Workplace Information Day", Wellington Park Hotel.

  30 April 2003—Employers' Forum on Disability Launch of Disability Awareness Video for Employers, Studio 1 BBC

  6 May 2003—Arts Council for Northern Ireland—Launch of "Artists Abroad" Scheme, match funding by OFMDFM

  9 May 2003—Announcement by Minister Des Browne of 22 NI Grants winners under a one-off OFMDFM funded grant scheme. Total awards approximately £102,000. Additional to the £222,000 awarded to 12 NI projects under the Department for Work and Pensions Scheme in December 2002 to mark EYPD.

  10–16 May 2003—Educational Guidance Service for Adults (EGSA) Adult Learning Week.

  19 May 2003—International Week of Dance—Dance & Disability 1-day series of

  dance workshops event—Artscare, Olympia Leisure Centre.

  29 May 2003—NIPS A General Conference, Slieve Donard Hotel, Newcastle.

  30 May 2003—Sports Endeavour Award/Presentation for "New Horizon Minibus"—The Europa Hotel, The Lady Taverners, NI Region.

  Planned events

  3 June 2003—Opportunities Beyond School and Special Needs Careers Convention. Interactive Careers Convention for special needs students in full-time education—Southern Education and Library Board, Craigavon Civic Centre.

  13 June 2003—Torch Run Reception for the Special Olympics—Parliament Buildings, Stormont.

  14–16 June 2003—Events across NI to mark the Special Olympics including the Host Town Programme.

  15 June 2003—Regional Event—EU Interactive Trailer. Family-day of activities including, music, drama, leisure and fun—Carnfunnock Country Park, Larne.

  19 June 2003—The Scientific Symposium, Europa Hotel (Keynote Event)—Impact of

  Special Olympics on the Family.

  June 2003/October 2003—Series of Accessible Rambles—Belfast Shopmobility (Project Winner).

  21–29 June 2003—Rolling Skating Sporting Event —Special Olympics—King's Hall.

  1–5 September 2003—Accessible Arts—Dungannon Disability Arts Studio—Parkanaur Training College.

  Autumn—Regional Event—Employers Conference—(No further details).

  September 2003—Regional Event—reception for all 34 successful NI Project Winners—venue to be confirmed.

  25 September 2003—Arts and Disability Conference, Community Arts Forum, Craigavon Civic Centre.
  698W
  30 September 2003—Launch of Good Practice Guide, Causeway Volunteer Bureau

  (Project Winner)—venue to be confirmed.

  1 October 2003—Launch of Booklet on Accessible Rambles—Belfast Shopmobility—(Project Winner)—venue to be confirmed.

  October 2003—Cross-government regional event in partnership with external groups, on a range of disability issues, venue to be confirmed.

  6–12 October 2003—Community Transport Week, Community Transport Association—Roadshow across various towns in NI.

  11–14 November 2003—Children's World Integrated Play Tour, Contact a Family

  (Project Winner) cross community and cross-ability—Omagh, Plumbridge and Derry.

  14 November 2003—Conference "Pride and Prejudice-Our Pride Your Prejudice"—North West Forum of People with Disabilities (Project Winner).

  3 December 2003—European Day of People with Disabilities—events being hosted by a range of organisations throughout NI.

  December 2003—Regional Event—official closing event for the European Year (No further details).

  GPs
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) general practitioners and (b) other doctors aged more than 65 years are employed in Northern Ireland within the national health service. [116989]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is provided in the following table.

  General practitioners and other doctors aged more than 65 years employed in Northern Ireland

  Number

  General Practitioners1

  8

  Other Doctors (Consultants and Hospital Practitioners)2

  9

  1 General Practitioners figures are as at May 2003–06–09

  2 Other Doctors figures are as at 31 March 2003

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time permanent general practice posts there are in Northern Ireland. [116985]

  Mr. Browne
  At May 2003 there were 1,079 general medical practitioners of which 866 were full time and 213 were part-time or job share. A more detailed breakdown is given in the table.

  Number of general medical practitioners by employment status at May 2003

  Employment status

  Number

  Full time

  866

  Three-quarter time

  103

  Job share

  16

  Half time

  94

  Total

  1,079

  Source:

  Central Service Agency

  Hospital Appointments
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) in-patient admissions, (b) out-patient and (c) other hospital attendances there were in the last 12 months at (i) Ulster, (ii) Downe, (iii) Lagan Valley, (iv) Whiteabbey, (v) Mid-Ulster, (vi) Tyrone County, (vii) Erne and (viii) Mater Hospitals. [116975]

  Mr. Browne
  The information the hon. Member requested on(a) in-patient admissions, (b) out-patient attendances and (c) other hospital attendances at specific hospitals in Northern Ireland is detailed in the following table. The data relates to the 2001–02 financial year.

  Hospital

  In-patient Normal in-patient

  Day cases

  Out- patient

  A&E

  Ulster

  29,926

  11,192

  115,883

  63,148

  Downe

  5,686

  1,646

  21,349

  24,199

  Lagan Valley

  8,181

  4,287

  36,541

  36,600

  Whiteabbey

  4,204

  3,805

  21,416

  31,215

  Mid Ulster

  8,392

  2,302

  22,842

  25,061

  Tyrone County

  6,953

  3,235

  26,641

  20,421

  Erne

  11,044

  2,525

  21,913

  18,378

  Mater Infirmorum

  12,563

  4,812

  55,336

  44,568

  Notes:

  Part (a), Inpatient figures at the Ulster, Mid Ulster and Tyrone County include Ambulatory Care attendances; other hospitals classify these cases as Out-patients.

  Part (c), the only other hospital attendances recorded centrally are attendances at A&E Departments.

  Information for 2002–03 will be published in September in the Department's annual Hospital Statistics publication, this is available in the House of Commons Library and from the Department's website http://www.dhsspsni.gov.uk/stats&research/pubs.html.

  Hospital Procedures
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many procedures were postponed at hospitals in Northern Ireland during the last 12 months. [116967]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) out-patient attendances, (b) accident and emergency assessments and (c) in-patient admissions there were during (i) the first quarter and (ii) 2002 at hospitals in Northern Ireland. [116971]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on hospital activity in Northern Ireland is detailed in the table.

  Activity

  1 January to 31 December 2002

  1 January to 31 March 20031

  (a) Out-patient attendances—patients seen

  1,463,464

  375,343

  (b) Accident and emergency attendances

  659,825

  157,214

  (c) Normal in-patient admissions

  325,138

  81,407

  (c) Day cases admissions

  135,598

  37,115

  (c) Total in-patient activity (normal inpatient plus day case admissions)

  460,736

  118,522

  1 Data is provisional and may be subject to change.

  700W
  Hospital activity in Northern Ireland is published each September in the Department's annual Hospital Statistics publication, this is available in the House of Commons Library and from the Department's website http://www.dhsspsni. gov.uk/stats&research/pubs.html

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) inpatient admissions, (b) out-patient appointments and (c) other attendances at hospitals in Northern Ireland there were in the last year by citizens of the Republic of Ireland. [116973]

  Mr. Browne
  During 2002–03 the total number of inpatient admissions at hospitals in Northern Ireland where the patient was recorded as a resident in the Republic of Ireland was 2,322. Patients may have been admitted on more than one occasion.

  Figures for the number of (b) out-patient appointments and (c)other attendances are not available.

  Organ Donor Cards
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans there are to increase the number of individuals in Northern Ireland who carry organ donor cards; and if he will make a statement. [116991]

  Mr. Browne
  Over the past few years, organ donation rates in Northern Ireland have been among the highest in the UK and Ireland.

  The Department currently provides funding to the NHS special health authority, 'UK Transplant', which widely promotes organ donation across the UK, including the carrying of donor cards and the joining of the UK Organ Donor Register. The Department also contributes to the funding of four local Organ Transplant Co-ordinators, who have an important role in promoting organ donation in Northern Ireland.

  The Department continues to work with UK Transplant and local Organ Donation Co-ordinators to explore ways to further increase awareness of this important issue and promote organ donation.

  Residential Care
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) nursing home, (b) sheltered housing and (c) other residential care places for the elderly there (a) are and (b) were five years ago in Northern Ireland. [116970]

  Mr. Browne
  The most recent available information for a five-year period is presented as follows:

  31 March 2002

  31 March 1997

  (a) Places in Nursing Homes (Total)

  9,219

  9,766

  (b) Units of Sheltered Housing (Elderly)

  8,889

  7,612

  (c) Places in Residential Homes (Elderly)

  4,596

  4,965

  Urban Regeneration
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial resources were
  701W
  allocated for feasibility and economic appraisals in respect of urban regeneration projects in the Greater Belfast Area in each of the last 10 years. [116835]

  Mr. Browne
  The information the hon. Member requested is as follows:

  Financial year

  Number of feasibility/economic appraisals completed

  Total cost of feasibility/economic appraisals

  1993–94

  4

  16,382.46

  1994–95

  6

  16,646.00

  1995–96

  13

  36,405.72

  1996–97

  35

  191,826.27

  1997–98

  26

  73,232.03

  1998–99

  36

  104,688.00

  1999–2000

  24

  108,491.44

  2000–01

  15

  111,846.30

  2001–02

  18

  122,499.20

  2002–03

  28

  143,040.79

  2003–04 (to date)

  2

  7,110.00

  Total

  207

  932,168.21

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Benefits Payment
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has for an exceptions service for elderly and disabled people who are unable to receive their benefits by direct payment. [117298]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have always recognised that there will be a small group of people who we cannot pay directly into an account and the Department is committed to developing an alternative method to pay this group.

  We have analysed a range of options and currently a cheque based solution accommodates most known requirements, however further research with Specific Interest Groups and customers will inform the final decision.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether benefits paid directly into and held in(a) Post Office card accounts, (b) basic bank accounts and (c) other bank accounts are disregarded for the purposes of calculating entitlement to benefits; and if he will make a statement. [117586]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In the context of income-related benefits, resources are either income or capital. In general, any benefit paid to a person is treated as income for the period to which the payment relates, and is therefore not subject at that time to the capital rules for income-related benefits. Any unspent income after that period would be treated as capital and subject to the normal capital rules. This applies regardless of the method of payment or type of bank account into which the benefit is paid.

  Some payments of arrears of benefit are classed as capital but are subject to a full disregard for 52 weeks from the date they are received.

  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 50W, on benefit order books,
  702W
  what criteria will be applied to determine whether a person will qualify for the exceptions service through being unable to open or manage an account; and if he will make a statement. [118186]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Our plan is to design the exceptions service to properly meet the needs of the small minority of our customers, who are unable to open or manage an account This will be based on an understanding of the problems such customers will face. We will closely monitor the way the new Direct Payment arrangements work in practice and work with customer representative groups to design a secure and efficient service which meets the needs of those customers who cannot manage accounts.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners will be in receipt of means-tested benefits as a result of the introduction of the Pension Credit. [117302]

  Maria Eagle
  Around half of all pensioner households will be entitled to Pension Credit when it is introduced in October and stand to gain £400 a year on average. We are committed to ensuring that as many of them as possible take it up.

  We estimate that by October 2003 around 1.8 million MIG claims will be automatically transferred to Pension Credit. Between October 2003 and October 2004 we expect to take on a further million successful applicants for Pension Credit.

  We also expect an additional 250,000 pensioners to become newly entitled to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit from October.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what use of regional and local media his Department proposes to make in publicising Pension Credit and encouraging take-up. [117287]

  Maria Eagle
  We want as many pensioners as possible to take up their entitlement to Pension Credit which will be worth £400 a year on average to each pensioner household.

  We plan a comprehensive campaign, including national press and TV advertising as well as flyers in regional and local papers and magazines.

  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the level of Housing Benefit fraud. [117303]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have set a challenging target to reduce fraud and error in Housing Benefit for working age people. We are working with local authorities to achieve a 25 per cent. reduction in March 2006.

  We are already using a wide range of initiatives to tackle Housing Benefit fraud. Since January 2003 the Department has funded Departmental solicitors to take forward prosecutions on behalf of local authorities. Our joint effort with local authorities is paying dividends—local authority prosecutions and sanctions for benefit fraud have more than doubled in the last two years.
  703W
  In addition, 81 per cent. of local authorities have now signed up to our Verification Framework, which stops fraud getting into the system in the first place. Additional funding has been made available from April, resulting in an across-the-board 50 per cent. increase for local authorities already compliant with the scheme or considering taking it up.

  For the first time we are undertaking an ongoing review of fraud and error in Housing Benefit and first results will be available later this year.
  Source:Fraud Information by Sector system

  Poverty Definition
  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, when the new definition of poverty will be announced. [117304]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We launched Measuring Child Poverty: a consultation document in April 2002. We received over 80 detailed written responses to the consultation and have gathered feedback from workshops in London and Edinburgh with academics and organisations interested in child poverty measurement. We have also organised workshops in partnership with organisations such as the Children's Society, Bamardo's, Children in Wales and the European Anti-Poverty Network—to gather the views of children, young people and adults with direct experience of poverty.

  Measuring Child Poverty Consultation: preliminary conclusions was published in May 2003. This outlines recommendations and next steps based on a thorough analysis of the responses to the consultation. The report states that further technical work is necessary before finalising any new measure of child poverty and that we intend to publish final conclusions by the end of 2003.

  Both reports are available in the Library.

  Occupational Pensions Schemes
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the number of occupational pensions schemes that have closed in the last year. [117305]

  Maria Eagle
  The recent Green Paper 'Simplicity, security and choice: Working and Saving for Retirement' (Cm5677) set out proposals to minimise the number of pension scheme closures or wind-ups by encouraging employers to promote and persevere with pension schemes of all kinds. We intend significant simplification of the regulatory regime which could save employers considerable amounts of time and money.

  Child Support
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether he plans to change the rules on the pre-existing child support arrangements with regard to student loan payments [117306]

  Malcolm Wicks
  No.

  Adult Education
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people counted under(a) claimant count unemployment figures and (b) International Labour Organisation unemployment figures did not have a first Level 2 qualification in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [114485]

  (2) what the proportion of economically inactive people without a first Level 2 qualification by age in each year since 1997 is; and if he will make a statement. [114483]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Paul Holmes of 3 June 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked 10 reply to your Parliamentary Questions about unemployed and economically inactive people without a first NVQ Level 2 qualification. I am replying in his absence. (114483, J14485)

  The attached tables give the information requested for (a) people classified as unemployed according 10 the International Labour Organisation definition and (b) economically inactive people. These estimates are from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). Information about the qualification levels of people included in the Claimant Count is not available.

  Unemployed people of working age 1without a first NVQ Level 2 or equivalent qualification2 United Kingdom

  Thousand

  March to February

  1997–98

  690

  1998–99

  631

  1999–2000

  573

  2000–01

  610

  2001–02

  480

  2002–03

  463

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–59

  2 People with DO qualifications and those whose highest qualification is below NVQ level 2 or equivalent

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates have not been interim adjusted to take account of the recent census 2001 results.

  Source:

  ONS—Labour Force Survey

  Proportion of economically inactive people of working age 1without a first NVQ level 2 or equivalent qualification2, by age United Kingdom

  Per cent

  March to February

  Total

  16–17

  18–24

  25–34

  35–49

  50– 69/64

  1997–98

  40.5

  44.0

  19.5

  38.6

  46.6

  46.7

  1998–99

  40.3

  44.5

  18.4

  37.6

  46.4

  46.3

  1999–2000

  39.2

  45.5

  18.6

  35.8

  43.8

  45.8

  2000–01

  38.3

  43.8

  18.1

  35.8

  43.1

  44.2

  2001–02

  38.6

  44.4

  19.1

  35.8

  43.2

  44.2

  2002–03

  37.3

  43.9

  19.5

  33.5

  41.8

  43.0

  1 Men aged 16–64 and women aged 16–69

  2 Includes economically inactive people with no qualifications, and those whose highest qualification is below NVO level 2 or equivalent

  Note:

  These Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimates have not been interim-adjusted

  to take account of the recent Census 2001 results.

  Advice Services
  Mr. Paul Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he will publish an implementation strategy for the Government's objective of providing a one-stop shop advice service to older people by 2006. [115525]

  Maria Eagle
  This Government made a commitment in it's 2001 Manifesto to the delivery of a 'third age service'. Specifically, it stated that"Pensioners need simple accessible services that treat them with dignity and promote independence. We will build on Care Direct to provide a better integration of health, housing, benefits and social care. This will be an integrated 'third age service' to help older people and those who care for them".

  Over the past few months we have been consulting representatives from the public and voluntary sector who provide benefits and services to older people in order to better understand how we can work more effectively in partnership.

  Officials are currently developing plans for how the DWP will enable the development of a 'third age programme'. This will build on the excellent work already underway at local level in many parts of the country to meet the needs of older people in a more joined up way.

  Age Discrimination
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and pensions what plans he has to introduce legislation to tackle age discrimination. [117300]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  We have made a commitment to introduce legislation to tackle age discrimination in the workplace by 2006. Consultation on this will be taken forward by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  In advance of this we have launched our Age Positive campaign to encourage employers to employ workers of all ages. The campaign is raising employers' awareness of the business benefits that older workers can bring, as well as the benefits to older people of staying in the workforce.

  The success of our New Deal 50 plus programme is also contributing to our wider campaign to tackle age discrimination. By the end of March this year over 98,000 people had moved into work with the help of New Deal 50 plus.

  Since 1997 the employment rate of people between 50 and state pension age has risen from 65 per cent. in 1997 to 68 per cent. in 2002.

  Miners' Pension Funds
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what recent discussions he has had with the trustees of the miners' pension funds. [118025]

  Maria Eagle
  The Miners' Pension Fund is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I have not had any recent discussions with the trustees of the fund.

  Benefit Administration (Funding)
  Mr. Heald
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will make a statement on the means by which the administration of(a) housing and (b) council tax benefit by local authorities is funded; [94004]

  (2) what the cost to (a) his Department and its predecessor and (b) local authorities of administering (i) housing and (ii) council tax benefit was in the last four years for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [94005]

  Malcolm Wicks [pursuant to his answer, 3 April 2003, Official Report, c. 835–37W]
  Half of the administration subsidy for both housing benefit and council tax benefit is funded through a grant from the Department for Work and Pensions. This is allocated to individual local authorities using a formula agreed in consultation with the local authority associations. The formula takes account of the size of the caseload and the complexity of housing benefit cases, with elements for accommodation and staffing costs. The remaining half is funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive through the Revenue Support Grant (Grant Aided Expenditure in Scotland) within their local government finance settlements.

  From 2003–04, administration subsidy will be paid entirely by this Department as one direct grant to local authorities. During 2003–04, we will also distribute an additional £33 million for on-going and transitional costs associated with the introduction of the pension credit as well as £11 million for on-going costs associated with new tax credits.

  The Department also helps fund the administration of the Verification Framework and payments are made through the Help Fund to support various local authority led initiatives aimed at improving housing benefit administration where lack of funds is a barrier. A further £223 million Verification Framework funding is being made available for the three years from April 2003. This will provide a 50 per cent. increase in both set-up and on-going funding. We are also investing £200 million over the next three years in helping authorities meet the new Performance Standards.

  Actual expenditure on the administration of these benefits, as reported by local authorities, exceeds the total subsidy provided by central Government. Local authorities account for their expenditure in very different ways. For example, some will include a portion of central charges for administrative costs that will have little to do with housing benefit administration in their housing benefit costs. Some will provide a cost net of additional grants from the Department. Because the data reported by authorities do not reflect a uniform accounting standard across authorities, reported expenditure across all authorities may not be directly comparable with the grants paid figures.

  The information available is in the tables.
  707W

  DWP Administration Subsidy and Caseload

  Housing benefit administration initial allocation (£ mission)

  Average housing benefit caseload

  Council tax administration initial allocation (£ million)

  Average housing benefit caseload

  Additional in year payments (£ million)

  1998–99

  97.9

  4,414,000

  61.2

  5,257,000

  3.0

  1999–2000

  87.6

  4,198,000

  72.0

  5,022,000

  5.0

  2000–01

  86.8

  3,952,000

  74.2

  4,731,000

  13

  2001–02

  89.7

  3,844,000

  76.3

  4,636,000

  –

  Notes:

  1. Caseload data refer to households claiming housing benefit, which may be a single person, a couple or a family. More than one benefit household can live in one property, for example, two or more adults in a flat or house share.

  2. Caseload figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  3. Council tax benefit caseload totals exclude any second adult rebate cases.

  4. Housing benefit caseload figures exclude any extended payment cases.

  5. The data are the average of caseloads taken in May, August, November and February of each year.

  6. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  7. Additional payments have been made to cover policy and procedural changes for both housing benefit and council tax benefit administration.

  8. Additional in-year payments were made towards administration of procedural changes.

  Sources:

  1. Social Security Income Related Benefits (Subsidy to Authorities) Amendment Orders 1999 to 2002.

  2. Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in May, August, November and February 1998–99 to 2001–02.

  DWP Expenditure on Anti-fraud Initiatives, the Verification Framework and the Help Fund

  £ million

  Challenge funding

  Benefits agency/ local authority joint working payments

  Security against fraud and error (SAFE) and weekly benefit savings

  Verification framework

  Help Fund

  1998–99

  9.5

  —

  18.6

  5.5

  —

  1999–2000

  5.5

  —

  15.5

  29.1

  —

  2000–01

  2.9

  2.7

  12.2

  24.4

  —

  2001–02

  —

  1.4

  14.4

  38.6

  1.8

  Notes:

  1. Although not specifically for administration, local authorities are given financial incentives for investigating and detecting fraud.

  2. Challenge Funding was a scheme where councils could submit bids for innovative anti-fraud initiatives.

  3. The Security Against Fraud and Error (SAFE) scheme was first introduced in April 2001 and fully replaced the Weekly Benefit Savings (WBS) scheme in April 2002.

  4. SAFE and WBS figures are subject to revision by local authorities.

  5. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  6. The reduction in SAFE and WBS funding may be attributable to increased VF funding which may have led to a fall in the level of fraud entering the benefit system.

  Sources:

  1. WBS and SAFE figures are from local authorities' audited final subsidy claims.

  2. Challenge Funding and Joint Working Payment figures from 1998–99 to 2000–01 are from DSS/DWP Appropriation Accounts. 2001–02 figures are from DWP records.

  3. VF data are from DWP administrative records.

  4. Help Fund expenditure is in the Social Security Income Related Benefits (Subsidy to Authorities) Amendment Order 2002.

  Reported Administrative Costs of Local Authorities in Great Britain

  Housing benefit (£ million)

  Council tax benefit (£ million)

  Total (£ million)

  DWP funding as percentage of reported expenditure

  1997–98

  349.7

  192.7

  542.5

  43

  1998–99

  361.4

  192.0

  553.3

  35

  1999–2000

  379.6

  209.4

  588.9

  36

  2000–01

  412.2

  229.9

  642.1

  32

  Notes:

  1. Figures have been rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  2. Figures are subject to revision by local authorities.

  Sources:

  1. English authorities—reports to the ODPM, and its predecessors, using form RO4.

  2. Welsh authorities—reports to the Welsh Assembly using form RO4. Prior to devolution, returns were made to the Welsh Office.
  708W
  3. Scottish authorities—reports to the Scottish Executive using Local Financial Return LFR9. Prior to devolution, returns were made to the Scottish Office.

  Benefit Claims
  Mr. Frank Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average duration of benefit claims was for each of the major benefits administered by his Department and its predecessors in each of the last 30 years. [110765]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Compensation
  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average period of delay
  709W
  was in cases where compensation was paid for delays in processing retirement pension in each year since 1997; and in how many cases the delay for which compensation was paid did not breach the indicator of delay. [115487]

  Maria Eagle
  The information requested is not available.

  Demography (Greater London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what percentage of the working population within the Greater London area is over 50 years of age. [116706]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Karen Dunnell to Mr. Cox dated 3 June 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the percentage of (he working population within Greater London who are over 50 years of age. I am replying in his absence. (116706)

  The latest available Labour Force Survey (LFS) estimate, for the three month period ending in February 2003. is that of the population resident in Greater London who were in employment, 20.4 per cent were aged 50 years or over.

  Disability Bill
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he plans to publish the draft Disability Bill; and what areas it will cover. [116464]

  Maria Eagle
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, announced on 22 January his intention to publish a draft Disability Bill later in 2003. The draft Bill, which will be subject to pre-legislative scrutiny, is still being developed and its exact scope has yet to be finalised. However, measures in it will include proposals that the Government outlined in "Towards Inclusion", our response to the Disability Rights Task Force. Those being considered include: extending the DDA definition of disability to more people with HIV and cancer; introducing a duty on public bodies concerning equalisation of opportunities for disabled people; extending duties under Part 3 of the DDA in such areas as the function of public bodies, transport operators and premises; and covering membership of larger private clubs.

  Female Pensioners
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions which proposals in the recent Pensions Green Paper are designed to help female pensioners. [117289]

  Maria Eagle
  The Green Paper proposals will help women and men of working age to plan and save for the retirement they want in the future.

  Today's pensioners are on average £1,250 a year better off, thanks to measures taken by the Government. Today's poorest pensioners—usually women are £ 1,600 a year better off.

  Incapacity Benefit
  David Cairns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress has been made on the Pathways to Work incapacity benefit reform pilots he announced last year. [117301]

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  The Green Paper "Pathways to Work" set out a strategy for enabling people with health problems and disabilities to move into work. Our response to the consultation will set out the recommendations we intend to take forward, together with our plans for implementing the pilots.

  I recognise that my hon. Friend has a particular interest here as one of the pilot areas falls within his constituency. This provides a great opportunity for the community he represents, and I can confirm that excellent progress is being made in establishing that pilot.

  Pension Provision (Foster Carers)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on Government plans to assist for foster carers with pension provision. [116803]

  Maria Eagle
  Regulations will be laid before Parliament shortly that will extend home responsibilities protection to registered foster carers, so that those years of caring count towards reducing the number of qualifying years needed to obtain a full basic State Pension.

  Pension Service
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the effectiveness of the new Pension Service. [114870]

  Maria Eagle
  The Pension Service was launched to provide a service focused on the needs of pensioners. To date the service has opened 25 of its planned 26 new centres across the country and continues to deliver services through an International and two National pension centres at Newcastle.

  In addition, last month, The Pension Service launched the Pension Credit Application Line to support early applications for Pension Credit which is payable from October 2003.

  The Pension Service has also implemented a local service, now operating in all regions of England, Scotland and Wales, and is working in partnership with many other organisations dealing with pensioners such as local authorities and voluntary sector organisations.

  The local service will play a vital role in promoting Pension Credit, providing advice and information to partners, and working with them to help target customers who need additional help in taking up their entitlements, such as ethnic minority or housebound customers, and those with disabilities.

  Further information on The Pension Service targets and standards can be found in the Department for Work and Pensions Departmental Report 2002–03 published

  711W
  15 May 2003 and The Pension Service Business Plan 2003–04 published 14 April 2003. Both documents are available in the Library.

  Personal Capability Assessments
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many appeals against decisions made at personal capability assessments were(a) heard and (b) decided in the appellant's favour in (i) 2002 and (ii) each month of 2003; what proportion of the total appeals heard were successful in (A) 2002 and (B) each month in 2003, broken down by benefit; what the average length of time between lodging an appeal against a personal capability assessment decision and having that appeal heard was in (1) 2002 and (2) each month of 2003; and if he will make a statement. [114469]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Christina Townsend, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Paul Holmes dated 6 June 2003:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to respond to your question regarding personal capability assessments in 2002 and 2003.

  We do not have all the information on personal capability assessments you have requested. However, I have arranged for a set of tables to be placed in the library. The tables set out the number of personal capability assessment cases cleared and those appeals found in favour of the appellant for all benefits. The final table shows the average time taken to clear appeals from the date lodged at the first tier agency to the date, it is cleared at a hearing. I should perhaps point out that the Appeals Service is responsible for the appealonly from the date it is received from the first tier agency until cleared at a hearing, where the average waiting time for all appeals in 2002–2003 was 12.5 weeks.

  I hope this reply is helpful.

  Unemployment (Haltemprice and Howden)
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were unemployed in Haltemprice and Howden in(a) the last month for which figures are available and (b) each of the preceding 12 months. [116767]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from John Pullinger to David Davis of 3 June 2003:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary question regarding the number of people who were unemployed in Haltemprice and Howden in the last month for which figures are available and each of the preceding 12 months. I am replying in his absence. (116767)

  The Office for National Statistics (ONS) compiles statistics of unemployment from surveys following the internationally standard International Labour Organisation definition. However the survey sample is too small to provide estimates for the Haltemprice and Howden Parliamentary Constituency, ONS also compiles claimant count statistics of chose claiming Jobseekers Allowance for Parliamentary Constituencies.

  The attached table gives the number of claimants of.jobseekers Allowance in the Haltemprice and Howden Parliamentary Constituency for the period April 2002 to April 2003. The data are not seasonally adjusted.
  712W

  Number of JSA claimants in Haltemprice and Howden Parliamentary Constituency

  Not seasonally adjusted

  2002:

  April

  781

  May

  763

  June

  754

  July

  809

  August

  796

  September

  768

  October

  757

  November

  753

  December

  740

  2003:

  January

  799

  February

  797

  March

  784

  April

  745

  Source:

  Jobcenter Plus administrative system

  Winter Allowance
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will estimate the number of people aged 80 years and over in(a) Leeds Metropolitan District and (b) the Leeds, West constituency who will receive the increased winter allowance of £300. [116012]

  Maria Eagle
  We estimate that some 30,000 people in Leeds local authority area and around 3,000 in Leeds West constituency could be entitled to the extra payment announced by the Chancellor.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Age Discrimination
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to address the issue of age discrimination. [109458]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to valuing and promoting diversity and equality of treatment for all regardless of age, and has taken steps to integrate age into equal opportunity policies. Action on diversity will tackle any negative attitudes towards older staff particularly through the training and development of managers and through the monitoring of recruitment, selection and appraisal statistics.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the cost to(a) central and (b) local government of administering council tax benefit in 2002–03; and if he will make a statement. [109532]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  This Department subsidises local authorities for the administration of council tax benefit (CTB) and housing benefit (HB). In 2001–02 this amounted to £161 million and in 2002–03 it was £170 million. This sum is matched by Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive through

  713W
  the general funds that they distribute to local authorities. Of our allocation, in 2001–02 £74.2 million was specified for use in CTB administration, a similar amount was supplied by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the National Assembly for Wales and the Scottish Executive. However, the formulae used to split funds between HB and CTB by these administrations are slightly different, therefore the exact amounts may vary. In 2002–03 £78.5 million was specified by DWP for use in CTB administration.

  For 2001–02, in addition to the £161 million, we distributed a further £5.5 million for policy and budget changes and £7.5 million to implement new appeals procedures. These figures were not broken down into separate amounts for CTB and HB. This corrects the information given in my written reply on 8 April 2003, Official Report, column 228–9W.

  For 2002–03 the Department distributed an additional £6 million to local authorities to help them meet set-up costs relating to the new tax credits, and £15 million for set-up costs relating to the Pension Credit. These extra allocations were made to meet the costs of administering both HB and CTB and a separate breakdown for CTB is not available.

  From this year, administration subsidy for both HB and CTB is funded entirely by this Department as one direct grant to local authorities.

  Reported expenditure by local authorities on Council Tax Benefit administration is not yet available for 2002–03.

  Notes:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest £100,000.

  Sources:

  1. DSS and DWP HB/CTB Subsidy circulars to local authorities (S6/2001, S8/2001, S2/2002 and S5/2002). Social Security Income Related Benefits (Subsidy to Authorities) Amendment Order 2001.

  2. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  3. The National Assembly for Wales.

  4. The Scottish Executive.

  Flooding
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations his Department has received concerning the dangers of house building on flood plains. [117488]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and its predecessors have regularly received representations on various aspects of the risks of all types of inappropriate development, including house building, in areas at risk from river and coastal flooding. These risks have for many years been reflected in planning guidance to local authorities, most recently in Planning Policy Guidance Note 25, "Development and Flood Risk", published in July 2001. This updated, strengthened and replaced the previous guidance in Department of the Environment Circular 30/92. In particular, it introduced a risk-based approach that matches types of development to levels of risk.It makes clear that residential development is not appropriate in the functional flood plain, where excess water must flow in times of flood. In less high-risk areas that are already developed, further residential building may be possible,714W
  but only after a flood risk assessment appropriate to the scale and nature of the development has been carried out.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many new houses have been granted planning permission on areas deemed at(a) low, (b) medium and (c) high risk of flooding for each year since 1997. [117489]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by the then Under-Secretary of State for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) on 7 May 2002,Official Report, column 25W, in respect of the years before 2001–02. While information in not collected in the form requested, the operation of the policies on development in flood risk areas in PPG25, "Development and Flood Risk", is monitored by the Environment Agency through its high level target 12, which it reports to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and to the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs. The latest report, for 2001–02, shows that around 800 dwellings in England—less than 0.5 per cent. of the total—were subject to sustained objections by the Environment Agency on grounds of flood risk, but permitted after consideration by the local authorities concerned. Since about 10 per cent. of the land area and population of England is within the area of the Agency's indicative flood plain maps, this shows that local authorities are already giving serious consideration to flood risk in permitting new housing developments.

  Local Authority Funding
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what specific or direct grants have been made by his Department to local authorities for 2003–04(a) in England and (b) broken down by local authority, identifying whether the grant is (i) ring-fenced, (ii) a specific formula grant, (iii) within aggregate external finance and (iv) outside aggregate external finance. [114914]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is available in the Library of the House.

  Market Research
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what expenditure has been incurred by his(a) Department, (b) agencies and (c) non-departmental bodies in 2002 on (i) opinion polling, (ii) focus groups and (iii) other forms of market research; and if he will list the surveys commissioned and the purpose of each. [106262]

  Mr. Leslie
  The detailed information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Parliamentary Question
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to question ref: 111772, tabled on 5 May 2003 by the right hon. Member for West Worcestershire. [117203]

  Mr. Leslie
  The named parliamentary question was answered on 5 June 2003.

  Press Office
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many people are employed in his Department's Press Office; and how many were employed on 2 May 1997. [108400]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created on 29 May 2002. On 1 April 2003, the Office employed 21.8 full-time equivalent press officers and five full-time equivalent administrative support staff.

  Street Wardens
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy P rime Minister if he will continue the funding arrangement beyond March 2004 to enable the experimental Community Street Wardens Scheme in Colchester to be established on a permanent basis; and if he will make a statement. [116314]

  Mrs. Roche
  Government funding for Warden Schemes was awarded on a short-term basis, and it was clear from the start that this financial support would only be for a limited period. Additionally, local 716W
  authorities have requested that we stop area-based initiatives, in order that they have more flexibility in how they spend their own funds. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister already has examples of local authorities and housing associations that are mainstreaming schemes.

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

  Supporting People Grant
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister why his Department proposes to deduct money from the Supporting People grant allocation for Dorset. [118213]

  Mr. McNulty
  The adjustment has been made to allow for expected savings due to declining obligations in respect of transitionally protected clients and the impact of early service reviews.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  The leasehold provisions of this Act are being phased in over a period of time. A first commencement order on 26 July last year brought in most of the changes to the rules for enfranchisement and lease renewal for flats and houses.

  We are now in the process of implementing the remaining leasehold provisions in two more stages. By the end of September 2003 we expect to bring the main package into force: the provisions relating to the new right to manage, the requirement to use a right to enfranchise company in collective enfranchisement cases, the new requirements for consulting leaseholders about major works and the widening of the Leasehold Valuation Tribunal jurisdiction.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Widows' Allowances
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  I would like to announce measures to maintain all the current qualifying conditions of those receiving Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widowed Parent's Allowance now child dependency increases have been removed.

  Schedule 3 of the Tax Credits Act provides for the entitlement conditions in section 81 of the Social Security and Contributory Benefits Act, insofar as they relate to Widowed Mother's Allowance and Widowed Parent's Allowance, to be replaced by a link to similar conditions in section 77 of that Act. Section 81 has been repealed in its entirety.
  40WS
  This allows widows and widowers whose children live in the same household to continue to receive WMA/WPA in respect of the parent. The benefit position of someone receiving either of these benefits is also maintained if their child is looked after by somebody else, so long as a contribution for the child's maintenance is made that is consistent with the current rules. Provided they pay over at least an amount equivalent to the rate of any child dependency increase that they are entitled to their right to WMA or WPA is not affected. They are still required, as now, to pay over an amount equivalent to the Child Benefit paid to them in respect of that child.

  To achieve this, it is necessary for the time being not to operate in these cases section 77(6)(a) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992. Consequently, any cases in which this condition applied entail extra-statutory expenditure. Amending legislation will be brought forward to reflect the policy intention as soon as possible.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Extradition Bill
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Bob Ainsworth)
  I am today publishing a draft code of practice which sets out the application and operation of police powers in extradition cases, under Part 4 of the Extradition Bill.

  Copies of the draft code of practice, and the covering consultation paper, are available in the Libraries of both Houses and the document can also be viewed on the Home Office website.

  Interested parties are invited to submit their comments and views on the content, structure and format of the draft by Monday 8 September to:

  Code of Practice Consultation, Extradition Bill Team, Room 1021, 50 Queen Anne's Gate, London SW 1H 9AT, from whom further copies of the document are available.

  All replies that are received will be made public unless the author explicitly requests that this should not happen.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Sheffield.

Children in Need
Baroness Howe of Idlicoteasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the duty imposed under Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 "to safeguard and promote the welfare of the children within their area who are in need" is being satisfactorily interpreted by local authorities throughout the United Kingdom.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, the Children Act 1989 sets out a range of duties and powers applying to local authorities with social services responsibilities. In order to have councils in England and Wales meet their statutory duties effectively the Government published statutory guidance in 2000 which set out a comprehensive framework against which the needs of a child and their families can be assessed.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that helpful reply, and congratulating her on the fact that the recent amendment to Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 indicates that local authorities have the power, if not the actual duty, to help children in need with accommodation as well as other necessities, is she aware that the Frank Buttle Trust, which has made grants to children in serious need for over 50 years, is often approached for funds by local authorities in cases where no Section 17 funds have been made available by them despite the extreme circumstances of the relevant case? Does the Minister agree that it is unacceptable that some local authorities
2
should seek to evade their responsibilities in that way? Is it a matter that the Minister would be prepared to refer to the Social Services Inspectorate?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I join my noble friend in commending the Frank Buttle Trust, which does excellent work on behalf of children. Section 17 allows councils to make provision for a wide range of assistance in kind and cash. I would be disturbed if I discovered that they were evading those responsibilities as they are funded to take account of local need, but they have to follow their priorities and they have discretion to do so. On the previous occasion that the Social Services Inspectorate considered the issue it found that local authorities were providing a flexible and effective response. Almost all the soundings reported that people were extremely pleased with the service that they received. However, I certainly take note of what the noble Baroness said and I shall get back to her.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, are the Government satisfied with the progress achieved by the Quality Protects programme in relation to looked-after children both in terms of education and of care?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, when we start from such a low base in terms of looked-after children it is hard to be satisfied but I believe that we have made real progress. The Quality Protects programme is designed to transform the life chances of some of the most vulnerable children. In the past five years we have seen an increase of 25 per cent in the proportion placed for adoption, children in care being moved less frequently, and a reduction in the number of reregistrations. We are seeing some improvement in education, particularly as regards children getting one GCSE. We have a long way to go but the signs are very good.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the John Groom Organisation's recent report on young disabled people? Does she agree with me that the person most qualified to decide what the needs of

3
a young disabled person are is that young person him or herself? Is she aware that the report states that many young people with disabilities feel that they are not sufficiently well consulted and that the package of care provided to them is based more on what is available than what they really need? Will the Minister comment on those findings?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, for a long time we have neglected the voice of the child. That is an extremely important point. The National Service Framework for Children has a special working group considering disabled children. It is making great efforts to ensure that those children are listened to and that their needs are put in their own words and are accounted for. The Children's Rights Director, based in the National Care Standards Commission, has a responsibility both to listen to and to amplify the voice of the child.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, I am concerned about a particular aspect of the need that we are discussing. Are the Government satisfied with current arrangements for the care of unaccompanied children arriving in this country and in particular those who may have been trafficked for purposes of exploitation? Do the Government accept that that is a national responsibility which should be nationally funded, and if not, why not?
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, indeed it is a national responsibility. Unaccompanied children and young people who come into the UK come within the scope of the Children Act 1989. I mentioned the framework for assessment in my opening Answer. A specific section of the framework advises local authorities—it is statutory guidance so they have to take account of it—to attend to the care of unaccompanied children. In addition, Section 17 itself enables local authorities to provide assistance and accommodation. Most unaccompanied children will come into the looked-after system because by definition they have no parent or carer with them.
Earl Howe: My Lords—
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Howe! Front-Bencher!
Baroness Trumpington: Sorry, my Lords. While I am on my feet, may I ask the Minister why the Government do not give any money for the education of children who have cerebral palsy? The Dame Vera Lynn home in Sussex educates 60 such children from the ages of one to five, and Dame Vera Lynn told me on Saturday that the home receives no money at all from the Government to help it.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, it is hard for me to comment on a specific case, but I will very happily look into it. Special needs children, which includes those
4
with cerebral palsy, are helped in different ways, sometimes through the mainstream system and certainly through the maintained special school system. I see the noble Baroness shaking her head; she is clearly not satisfied with that answer, so I shall look into the matter on her behalf.
Earl Howe: My Lords—
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that a key conclusion of the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into Victoria Climbie was that there was a basic lack of standards in services, a failure to record notes, a failure of staff to communicate with each other, a failure of supervision and a failure of senior officers to take responsibility for their own departments? Does she accept that, in any restructuring that the Government propose over the next few weeks for social services, concentration on the basics is therefore that much more important?
Baroness Andrews: Yes, my Lords. The Laming report found all sorts of failures in the process of communication that must be seriously addressed. Since that report, guidance has been issued, and the checklist sent to local authorities is back with the department following the response to the self-audit. The Government will respond to the Laming report with the Green Paper on children at risk very soon.

Directory Inquiries
2.45 p.m.
Lord Ezraasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that the replacement of the current three-digit telephone number for directory inquiries with 16 six-digit numbers with varying charges and providing varying services represents an improvement for customers.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, numbering is the responsibility of Oftel. Competition for directory inquiry services was introduced by Oftel in December 2002, so it is too early to judge the success of the scheme. Where competition has been introduced in other markets, such as Germany and the Republic of Ireland, consumers have tended to benefit from lower prices, higher quality of service and a wider range of services.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, is this form of competition not unrealistic, as all the new providers will have to use the BT database, for which they will have to pay BT a fixed annual fee plus a charge per inquiry? All that the new providers will offer is a complexity of tariffs that are very difficult to compare, as some will be based on a charge per minute, some on a fixed charge, and some on a combination of the two. Furthermore, would the noble Lord not agree that there are hidden traps in

5
the new system? If the providers offer to connect the inquirer to the number that they want, they could be charged anything up to 30p a minute for their connection, whereas the BT standard rate for local calls is 3p.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the interesting part of the Question is the response of BT to competition. We have already seen early indications that there will be competition on price, quality and type of service. Of course, one service has already offered a lower price, and BT has now provided exactly the same services offered by the competitor. I have found again and again in my business experience that monopoly providers will not innovate or provide new services, claiming that they are not wanted by the customers or are too difficult to do, but as soon as competition emerges they suddenly become possible. This is a classic example where a monopoly provider has not innovated or made new services available. Competition has been introduced, and we now see proper regard paid to the customer.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, does the Minister agree that that is a classic example, to use his words, of a large corporation caring not a jot for its customers but following the example that the Government so persistently set in terms of a love of complexity and complication and eschewing the simple solution?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not totally agree. There is no very simple solution. Three-digit numbers cannot be used because those have very largely been taken up, so six-digit numbers have to be used. However, they are not insuperably difficult numbers to remember. They are numbers such as 118 118 and 118 000, and there are very simple ways to remember them.
Lord Acton: My Lords, two or three years ago, when I was in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, I had occasion to try to find the code for Italy. It took me 11 telephone calls, including two to my wife to complain about the United States, before I got the number. Is that not an awful warning of the higher qualities of service that my noble friend expects?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am not totally clear about the issue raised. I very much sympathise with the noble Lord's difficulty in getting the number for Italy, but I do not think that wholly relevant to what is really quite a small change in the numbering system for directory inquiries in this country.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, is not the serious point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, that if the competitor says, "Would you like us to connect you?", there is no indication to the customer that it may charge up to 10 times more than BT would charge for that same call? Surely that is highly unsatisfactory and very damaging to the consumer.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, if there are different pricing systems, it is inevitable that they are slightly more complicated to understand than if there is one. Again, that is in the nature of competition. It is very clear that the services and their pricing structure have to be made known, with the services monitored by an independent body to make certain that they are properly marketed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister aware that many people would like to access the telephone numbers they require via the Internet but unless there is some regulation of the fees charged by BT they will not get them any cheaper? Under the Communications Bill, does Ofcom have the power to regulate the amounts charged by BT for the use of its database?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the great advantage of the system is that there is competition and that cheaper services are already being provided.
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords, if the Answer given by my noble friend to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, on competition is true, why is it that Onetel offers national telephone calls at one-third of the price of BT and BT refuses to respond in any way?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, presumably, in due course BT will have to respond because customers will go elsewhere.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that Oftel always acts in the consumer interest? I point out in particular that twice most weeks and certainly once every week I receive an expensive press release from Oftel. When I have asked about the cost of them—they always come beautifully presented in quality envelopes—I have been told, "Don't worry. It's nothing to you, it's all paid for by the telephone industry". That seems to overlook the fact that we, the public, are paying for the telephone industry.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, presumably if there were no press releases, Oftel would be accused of failing to communicate with the public. The question of the paper that they do it on is, I am afraid, not covered by brief. It is probably not a major overhead to the system.
Lord Carter: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that the new service will continue to provide the discounted services that are currently available for disabled customers?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, a specific number—the 195 service—is for customers who are unable to use a conventional telephone book because of disablement. That will remain completely unchanged.

European Defence Union
2.52 p.m.
Lord Chalfontasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the proposal for a European defence union now being floated by France and other member countries of the European Union.
The Minister for Trade (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, no, we do not.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I am grateful for that unequivocal Answer. Will the Minister confirm that the idea involves a proposal to set up a planning centre in Brussels by 2004? Does she agree that that planning centre would duplicate or be in direct competition with SHAPE and NATO? When the idea is put forward at the ministerial Council meeting in Greece, will Her Majesty's Government make it clear that they will have absolutely nothing to do with it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I hope that my Answer was clear and unequivocal because that is exactly what it was designed to be. As I understand it, there are some suggestions about a planning centre. However, Her Majesty's Government remain committed to the inclusive, the intergovernmental, the NATO-friendly approach to the ESDP which the EU and NATO have agreed. We will therefore not support the development of a small, inner core within the European Union, particularly one involving a mutual defence commitment. So the noble Lord can rest assured that we shall be opposing it.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, is the Minister aware that her clear and short answer to this particular project is extremely welcome? But has she noticed that her colleague, the Secretary of State for Defence, has recently spoken about the overall decline in EU military spending generally? What is the point of developing either this initiative or any others outside NATO when budgets are shrinking and when the funds will not be available for a proper European Union united defence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Answer was designed to be clear and short, particularly after what the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, said about the Government's love of complexity and complication. I hope that on this issue he will agree with me that the Government have been admirably uncomplicated and clear.
Her Majesty's Government have increased military expenditure. However, we believe that it is important to use the European mechanisms not only to try to encourage our colleagues in the EU to spend more on defence—and I notice that the noble Lord raises his eyebrows but we shall continue to press where we
8
believe that is necessary—but to avoid duplication of effort in the EU in order that available resources are not duplicated between member states.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps I may take the opportunity to thank the noble Baroness for what she kindly said. Does she understand that I have always regarded her as a shining example of simplicity and plainness—plain speaking? If she would be kind enough to give just a bit of a lesson to the neighbour on her left, I have no doubt that the noble Lord will benefit from it.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am bound to say to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, that it is not very gallant to call a lady simple and plain.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, is the new operation in the Congo being organised on a European basis? If so, what framework does that joint peace enforcement exercise come under?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Yes, my Lords, the United Nations Secretary-General requested that a short-term international force be deployed to the Democratic Republic of Congo with a specific remit, including to secure Bunia airport and other vital installations in Bunia, as well as protecting the civilian population. The mandate for such a force was decided in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1484. The EU had decided to conduct an ESDP operation to fulfil the mandate. We are discussing numbers of troops to be sent from the United Kingdom and I hope that that will be decided within the next 48 hours or so.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, the Minister has been good enough to say that the Government will not support this new defence initiative. Will she be so good as to enhance the clarity with which she addressed the Question by informing your Lordships whether the Government will be prepared to veto it?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as regards enhancing the clarity of the Answer, "No, we do not", it is a rather unequivocal view. Let me be clear. We welcome the proposals on defence to develop a capabilities agency. The EU has to spend more—and certainly more effectively—and to look at the tools available for ESDP. We support updating the Petersberg tasks and creating a solidarity clause to reflect the desire of member states to support each other when dealing with disasters or terrorist attacks.
What we do not and cannot support is the introduction of a common defence either at 25 or through enhanced co-operation. We believe that that would be divisive and would undermine NATO—

9
indeed, it would be a duplication of NATO. Therefore, we do not support the creation of any standing inner groups or inner core—call it what you will—for ESDP.
Lord Clark of Windermere: My Lords, will the Minister confirm that NATO and not the EU is providing planning and mission control for the Polish contribution in Iraq?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I understand it, the ESDP has come into operation only in relation to the Congo—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire—in relation to some civilian operations in Bosnia; and now in relation to Operation Concordia in Macedonia. That will be another military operation. Those are the three theatres where I understand that at the moment ESDP is operating.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the Minister was clear in her Answer to the Question. Is she able to be equally clear about which other countries in the EU are likely to be on the same side of this argument as Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: Not entirely, my Lords, no. What I can say is that the four countries which got together on this basis were Germany, Belgium, Luxembourg and France. The positions of others of our colleagues in the EU may be similar to ours. I understand, for example, that many of the accession countries take a similar view on the matter to Her Majesty's Government. However, at this moment I cannot give the noble and gallant Lord a full readout of who supports what over this.

Inflation: Measurement
2.59 p.m.
Lord Higginsasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have any plans to adopt the harmonised index of consumer prices (HICP), used by the European Central Bank as a measure of the level of inflation; and, if so, what are the purposes for which such a measure might be used.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said in his Budget Statement that the Treasury would continue to examine the detailed implications of changing the inflation target to a harmonised index of consumer prices basis. That is being examined from a monetary policy perspective only. The Government made a commitment to raise the full basic state pension by the higher of the September retail prices index or 2.5 per cent. Social security benefits will rise in he normal way and gilts too will continue to be treated in the current way.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Is he aware that, at a time of crisis in pensions provision, the Government have not
10
provided time in either House to debate the Green Paper? The pensions Minister has been placed in a Labour Party job and a month later has still not been replaced. Pensioners will be very alarmed by any suggestion that pensions increases may be cut because of a change in the measure of inflation. In the light of all that, I thank the Minister for his reply which will give people reassurance, although it will do little to help the overall problem that pensioners face.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my understanding is that the only suggestion that pensions could be cut came from Mr Oliver Heald of the Conservative Party. That suggestion has never been made by the Government.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, would my noble friend like to take this opportunity to reiterate the answer that he gave me last week in the debate on the monetary policy committee in relation to the growth and stability pact; namely, that the pragmatic use of the European harmonised index would in no way displace the RPI or RPIX—the index without the mortgage component—but that from the word go there would be the fullest consultation with all the stakeholders on all the moves towards the use of the European index? It is absolutely vital that confidence is maintained, including among those involved in wage bargaining as well as those involved in pensions issues, in relation to there being no problem in using that other index side by side with the RPI and RPIX.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Lea has just confirmed what I originally said to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. There is no question of pensioners suffering as a result of any change that may be made to the harmonised index of consumer prices for monetary policy purposes. Not only have I said that this afternoon, but as he reminds the House, I also said it last week.
Lord Newby: My Lords, is the Minister aware that in 1999—some four years ago—the House of Lords Select Committee on the monetary policy of the Bank
of England recommended that the Government give urgent consideration to the implications of using the harmonised index of consumer prices? Is not the failure of the Government to do anything about that until the past few weeks typical of a more general failure by the Chancellor to give any systematic thought to euro preparations over the past four years?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords. There has been no significant demand, other than from your Lordships' committee, for a change in the basis of measuring inflation from a monetary policy point of view. Any suggestion that it would be to the detriment of pensioners or social security payment recipients has not come from the Government and is entirely mischievous.
Lord St John of Bletso: My Lords, can the Minister assure the House that the HICP will not be adopted in

11
the United Kingdom until the Treasury gives a better indication of the cost of living in the United Kingdom? I refer particularly to the inclusion of council tax and housing depreciation.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, there are two differences between HICP and RPI measures. The first difference—it is one in which HICP is the same in virtually all countries outside the United Kingdom except Japan—is that it uses a geometric average of the basket of prices. That is widely accepted to be a better measure than using an arithmetical mean. The second is that, as the noble Lord, Lord St John, says, there are differences in the actual basket; there are more differences than that which he selected. Clearly, which is more relevant for monetary policy purposes is a matter of great importance that the Treasury is still considering.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, is there any reason why the Government should not have confidence in those who are preparing the HICP?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I see no reason why we should not have confidence in them. Constructing such indices is a highly specialised business.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I am sure that no one will be surprised to hear me say that at a convenient time after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord McIntosh of Haringey will repeat a Statement made in another place on economic and monetary union.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.5 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.—(Lord Falconer of Thoroton.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 25 [Positions of trust: interpretation]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 88:
Page 12, line 8, leave out "regularly"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 88 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 89 and 90 standing in my name and to Amendments Nos. 135, 139 and 140 standing in the name of my noble friend Lady Noakes to which my name is added.
Clause 25 stipulates that a person is in a position of trust only if he is regularly involved in the care or supervision of under 18s. That restriction creates a defence for the abuser who can demonstrate that his
12
involvement is irregular. If the abuser works only on an occasional basis in a detention centre, he may be able successfully to defend himself against a prosecution for abuse of trust if he is sexually involved with one of the children there. If the abuser works on a peripatetic basis in different local authority homes, and is brought in to work with under 18s from time to time, he too may be able to rely on that in his defence.
On the first day of Report, the Minister said at col. 1301 that removing the word "regular" would prohibit sexual relationships between a 17 year-old and a supply teacher who covers for only one day while the regular teacher is off. But requiring regularity markedly limits the protection offered by this offence. It is a mistake to limit the level of protection to be given to all children by relying on such unlikely scenarios. In any event, ultimately the responsibility falls on the person in a position of trust to ensure that he is not engaging in sexual relationships with those in his care.
A nurse who takes a shine to a patient should certainly not have sexual relations with that patient during his stay in hospital. The situation is similar with a supply teacher. So long as a relationship of trust subsists between him and the pupil there should be no sexual relationship. Once the person has reached the age of 18 or the position of trust has lapsed we must accept that the offence no longer applies. But while the position of trust exists the protection of the child should be paramount.
If the Government's primary concern is the protection of young people, they ought to agree that the protection of those who are abused by occasional, irregular carers is of greater priority than the freedom of those carers to have sex with those in their charge. If the Minister continues to cite cases of reductio ad absurdum, such as the once-only supply teacher, then let the noble and learned Lord bring forward an alternative form of words that does not impose the requirement of regularity but instead simply has a cutoff point—a de minimis provision. But I hope that the noble and learned Lord will not reject my arguments out of hand.
Similar arguments apply in support of my noble friend's amendments to Clause 47 in respect of care workers. Why should the law create a defence for those care workers who take sexual advantage of their patients but who work only occasionally with them? It makes no sense. The Minister will no doubt quote further examples of care workers whose sexual relationships he does not want to criminalise. But I say again, the onus really should be on the person in the position of trust to control himself.
Finally I put this scenario to the noble and learned Lord. What if prosecutors bring a case before the courts of a care worker who takes sexual advantage of several patients in his care? He works occasionally in a home where they live, but the work is intermittent, covering for staff who are sick. Sometimes he may go for months without working there. Will the word

13
"regularly" in the clause mean that he could escape conviction? If there is any risk that that would happen, the word must be removed. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I support the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Blatch. I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 135, 139 and 140, which stand in my name and that of my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Astor of Hever. Like my noble friend Lady Blatch, I continue to believe that a position of trust arises through the existence of a specified relationship regardless of its duration. Whether we are talking about vulnerable young people or mentally disordered people, they may trust a person in a certain position however long that person has been in the position.
Why regularity other than some other indication of substance was chosen seems obscure. Indeed, on care worker offences, the Government accepted that abuse could take place at the first time of meeting someone with a mental disorder. The possibility of abuse derives from the position of the abuser, not how long or how often the abuser sees the vulnerable person. I struggle to see the logic of the Government's position.
When the Minister dealt in Committee with the corresponding amendments relating to the abuse of trust, he gave the example of a nurse who looks after a 17 year-old during a one-day stay in hospital. He asked if there were to be no allowance for a relationship to occur after the stay in hospital ended. He seemed to conclude that abuse of trust offences would apply if "regularly" were omitted. But as I read the offences under Clauses 18 to 22 the position of trust must exist at the time of the sexual activity. So if a sexual relationship takes place after the position of trust ceases to exist, there is not a problem in relation to the abuse of trust offences.
The Minister, giving an example relating to care workers, said that the case of a person providing any service, such as a shop assistant or a taxi-driver, would be caught. But those people, if not employed by a care home or hospital, would be care workers only by virtue of Clause 47(4), which requires the services to be provided "in connection with" the person's mental disorder. I cannot see that shop assistants and taxi-drivers are within that category.
We see it as a simple issue. Has a vulnerable person been sexually abused? If so, was that abuse carried out by someone who had access to the vulnerable person through a position that gave some power, authority or other status in relation to that person? If so, an offence has been committed regardless of whether it was the first encounter or one of many. I hope that the Minister will reconsider his position.
Lord Rix: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 135, 139 and 140 seek some measure of accountability towards a vulnerable person, which would enable us to distinguish the additional responsibility and hence the culpability of a care worker rather than an ordinary citizen. That explains the requirement of regular contact. However, one incident involving someone in a one-off support role can do a lifetime's damage. I can
14
see the case for removing the requirement of regularity, but only if the Government are satisfied that we are still left with ordinary citizens' culpability and care staff culpability.
3.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the purpose of Amendments Nos. 88, 89 and 90 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, is to remove the word "regularly" from the definition of what counts as a position of trust. At present, a position of trust is defined as one where an adult is regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising and/or being in sole charge of a child or children.
The primary purpose of the offences is to provide protection in criminal law for young people over the age of consent who are considered particularly vulnerable to exploitation in an ostensibly consensual sexual relationship from those in a relationship of trust towards them. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said, her amendments would have the same effect on the care worker position.
Neither of the sexual offences is designed primarily to deal with other sexual offending behaviour, such as sexual intercourse with a child under the age of consent or non-consensual activity, which fall within the scope of a range of other sexual offences. We are dealing with 16 and 17 year-olds. It is intended to deal with abuses of a position of trust where a young person is especially vulnerable because of their circumstances or because the relationship is particularly strong. Imposing the severity of the criminal law can be justified only where the breach of trust is sufficiently serious to warrant the creation of the criminal offence.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, made clear, the amendments seek to extend the offence beyond those who have regular responsibilities in relation to the child. The amendments pose the question of whether it is desirable to catch by the clause very brief contact in which there is no opportunity to build a relationship of trust with the 16 or 17 year-old. As I understand the position of the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, her amendment seeks to cover the risk of what might happen if a supply teacher comes for one lesson, irrespective of the fact that there is no further contact. As the noble Baroness. Lady Noakes, said, it is only during the lesson that the relationship exists. Even if one comes occasionally, if one comes regularly, that is sufficient.
I am genuinely interested to discover what it is that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wishes to catch. If I am right in my analysis—the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, agrees as regards timing—if there is only one-off contact, the only period of the contact during which the relationship exists is, for example, where the supply teacher is teaching. Is it really sensible to amend the law in that way when that would also give rise to other related difficulties? I would be interested to know whether that is the situation that the noble Baroness is trying to catch.
I shall take the further examples of a supply teacher teaching a single lesson to a 17 year-old, or a Connexions advisor covering for a colleague for a

15
single meeting with a child. If we do not want just to catch what happens during the meeting, it is important that we make that clear by retaining the requirement for regular involvement. We believe that those people do not have sufficient influence over a child of that age to merit their engagement with the child being considered a position of trust for the purposes of the offence.
To return to the first example, if a supply teacher covers a colleague's maternity leave or regularly covers different teachers' leave across the school—the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave that example—it is likely that those circumstances would already fall within the scope of the offence. A nurse on temporary placement to a children's wing or a social worker on secondment to a children's home would similarly be covered. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, gave the example of a nurse treating someone for one day, perhaps as an outpatient at an A&E department. A 17 year-old comes in with a broken leg and is treated by the nurse for a period but never sees the nurse again in a nursing context. Is it what happens during that period that we should cover by omitting the word "regularly"? The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is nodding. But is that a sensible way of dealing with the problem?
I remain committed to the view that codes of conduct and disciplinary guidelines that exist in the professions concerned are the most appropriate means of dealing with consensual relationships where the existing requirements of the abuse of trust offence are not met.
Care worker offences raise similar issues in the parallel situation of dealing with care workers. The government amendments tabled in Committee went some way to meet the concerns expressed in the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes. They allow for a breach of a relationship of care to be committed on a first meeting where it was likely that subsequent contact would be regular. However, to go any further by including irregular contact risks infringing the freedom of choice of those with a mental disorder or learning disability who have the capacity to consent to sexual activity.
The amendments would catch, for example, the temp from an agency undertaking for a day reception duties at the hospital clinic that a person with a mental disorder attends. We think, with respect, that that is going too far.
A balance has to be struck, and we think that although the matter is difficult, we have the balance right. However, if there are particular examples that I have not dealt with that the noble Baronesses are seeking to capture in their amendments, I would be interested to hear them and I would consider them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his answer, but he has missed a number of points.
16
First, the level of casual working in social services establishments, children's homes and the places where care workers work is very high.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for intervening. Please do not misunderstand that because one is a casual worker one cannot be a regular worker.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, many of them are not regular. The Minister has not so far given a proper definition of "regular" for the purposes of the Bill and the defence against abuse. I have posed a number of questions, including a specific one this afternoon, to which the Minster has not responded. It is essential that we understand what is going to stand up in court as being "regular" contact. We do not know. I referred to casual workers.
I am also bothered by the situation in an establishment when a young person of 16 or 17 years, or even a young person in a sixth form, or with a mental impairment, who would be a concern of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, believes that a teacher, a care worker or a social worker who comes before them is in a position of trust, it is not said that because they are only in for one day that they are not in a position of trust—unlike the person that they see for five or seven days a week. Anybody in a position of authority, who exercises some power in one of those establishments, is deemed to be by the patient, the school pupil or the person in the children's home, to be in a position of trust. If an abuse takes place in that situation an abuse is an abuse. The idea that they are given on a plate a defence as set out in the Bill is wrong. We shall return to that matter. I hope that at the next stage of the Bill the noble and learned Lord will come forward with a scientifically worked-out view of the definition of "regular". I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 89 to 92 not moved.]
Clause 27 [Sections 18 to 22: sexual relationships which pre-date position of trust]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 93:
Leave out Clause 27.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I oppose Clauses 27 and 49 because they introduce into the abuse of trust provisions an outrageous defence for pre-existing sexual relationships. I also oppose government Amendment No. 105B which attempts to insert a similar pre-existing relationship defence in respect of familial sexual abuse.
The amendment appears to mean that if the family relationship within Clause 30(3) and (4) comes into existence after a sexual relationship has begun the sexual activity can continue legally. In a letter that I received only today the Minister gave an example about two young people. I am using the same analogy. A 16 year-old and a 21 year-old meet socially and strike up a romantic relationship, and, through that relationship, their respective parents come together and set up home, either inside or outside of marriage. The young people are now step-siblings and come

17
together in the same house. One could be 21 to 25 and the other just 16 or 17. If the parents disagree with that relationship. now that they are living under the same roof and are probably in the same bed, continuing and developing a sexual relationship, the parents have no defence whatever. What the youngsters are doing is legal because of the defence set out in the Bill. Previously, the two may have engaged in nothing more than petting. However, now, living together under the same roof as brother and sister, they can legally engage in full sexual intercourse, safe in the knowledge that they have a defence. I cannot understand why the Government should continue to approve of that.
I am especially disappointed about the proposed defence for familial sex abusers. I was delighted when the Government agreed to my amendment in Committee to remove the defence for relationships which began prior to the legislation, but now an even worse defence is being created. The arguments against having that sort of defence, against a charge of abuse of trust, or for care workers, hardly need repeating. The Government have recognised that there are those who obtain positions of trust so that they can begin to take sexual advantage of youngsters or people with mental disorders. It is astonishing that the Government should fail to recognise that such people might obtain such a position in order to continue such abuse.
Clause 27 gives carte blanche to teachers and others in positions of trust to continue sexual relationships with young people in their care as long as they can produce evidence that the sexual relationship started prior to the position of care. Clause 49 does the same for care workers who look after people with mental disorders. The "evidence" of the pre-existing relationship may be fabricated. It might be that a teacher begins a sexual relationship with a 16 year-old in his class and the two of them agree that, if they are ever asked, they will claim that the relationship started prior to the position of trust. That could become a standard technique. Even if the relationship really does begin prior to the position of trust, why should that justify the continuance of that sexual relationship during the time the child or mentally disordered person is in the care of the other? Why should the teacher who begins his sexual relationship with a pupil a week after he starts his job be guilty of a criminal offence, but not the teacher who begins his sexual relationship a week before? That makes no sense. The person who takes up a position of trust over someone with whom he is in a sexual relationship ought simply to choose between the relationship and the job. To allow the relationship to continue without legal sanction eats away at the very trust on which professions such as teaching and caring are built.
Furthermore, the pre-existing relationship may possibly have been a relationship between equals, but the ongoing relationship after the position of trust arises cannot be. There is no telling how much extra influence the person in a position of trust might have as a result. That may mean that the relationship lasts for much longer than it would have done. Perhaps the relationship prior to the position of trust essentially
18
involved mild petting. The presence of the relationship of trust might enable an adult to persuade or pressure the child or mentally disordered person into engaging in full sexual intercourse in the knowledge that that would be legal. That might result in the vulnerable person being drawn into a much more frequent and perhaps more deviant sexual relationship than might otherwise have occurred.
Similar arguments apply to the new defence for familial abuse. In a letter of 30th May the Minister wrote to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, on the issue of pre-existing relationships. He stated that the Department for Education,
"would expect a teacher who was in a pre-existing relationship with a 16 or 17 year-old not to move to the establishment that the young person attends, or to ensure that the young person goes to a different establishment from the one in which they teach".
That is precisely why we believe that that should be a criminal offence. It is all very well saying that that is what the Department for Education would expect. What if the teacher ignores that advice? He can ignore it with impunity because there is a defence set out in the Bill. There will be nothing in law to prevent him from doing so.
On the contrary, that teacher will find that the Bill specifically gives him a defence allowing him to continue his sexual relationship with the child in full view of all the other staff and students at the school, without fear of prosecution. To create scope for that kind of abuse by including that definition within the Bill cannot be right. I beg to move.
Lord Rix: My Lords, my stance, and that of Mencap, on Amendment No. 143 is straightforward. It is that a sexual relationship between consenting adults is not in most cases a matter for intervention by others. However, where one party has a professional responsibility or duty of care towards the other party, that needs to end for the relationship to be legitimately a sexual one. Imagine the situation in a residential home where a care worker is having sex with a resident because of a prior relationship, whereas in all other cases such a relationship would be taboo. Such an argument is insupportable.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, we have three amendments to deal with. Amendments Nos. 93 and 143, which were tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would, in effect, get rid of the defence of a pre-existing sexual relationship—a sexual relationship that pre-exists the relationship of trust. The noble Baroness wishes to remove that defence, and I anticipate from her remarks that she will oppose government Amendment No. 105B, which will be moved later. It will insert a similar defence in relation to familial sex offences.
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 93. The primary motivation for having the abuse of trust offences is the need to protect young people aged 16 or 17, who, although over the age of consent to sexual activity, are considered to be vulnerable to exploitation by a person who holds a particular

19
position of trust or authority in relation to them and so has considerable power over them. If the 16 or 17 year-old enters into a sexual relationship with a person with whom there is no such relationship of trust, the purpose of the abuse of trust offences is not brought into play. In those circumstances, there can be no basis for interfering with such a relationship. If the relationship came into existence separately from the relationship of trust, the policy purpose would not be offended. For that reason, we think that the fact that the sexual relationship exists before the relationship of trust should be a defence. An obvious example would be a Connexions adviser who is having a relationship with a 16 or 17-year old and then meets him or her in that context.
There is a second issue that arises in relation to the care worker offences. The noble Baroness will be aware of situations in which, for example, one member of a couple who are not married but have been in a long-term sexual relationship develops a mental disorder and the other starts to look after him or her. We hope that, in that situation, we would not criminalise a sexual relationship that continued while the "well" member of the couple cared for the other. That would not be appropriate for that situation.
A third situation might be that of two 17 year-olds—A and B—who are in a sexual relationship. As a consequence of that relationship, A's mum and B's dad meet and marry, and they all decide to live in the same house. According to the logic of the noble Baroness's resistance to our amendment, the relationship between the two 17-year olds would have to stop. That is not sensible, and I hope that, when the time comes, noble Lords will support Amendment No. 105B.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, that is, again, a disappointing answer. There has been no definition of a prior relationship. It could be extremely cursory. It could be an agreement between two people simply to say that there had been a prior relationship, as it would not be provable. It could just be a close encounter on one evening, prior to the person's taking up the job.
The noble and learned Lord has not commented on the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Even if there is an established and provable relationship, if the person concerned works in an establishment and continues a sexual relationship with one of the patients—that is probably not the most appropriate word—of that establishment or one of the people in its care, that professional person has the choice of working in another establishment in order to makes things regular. In other words, the code of practice put in place by the Department for Education and Skills should become the basis on which professionals are judged.
The noble and learned Lord unfairly used the example of a very long-standing relationship involving somebody with a mental impairment or between two people who have lived together, of whom one is now a carer for the other. If that happens in their own home, there is no argument. I concede to the noble and
20
learned Lord that it may not apply in the particular case that he mentions. However, we are talking about 16 and 17 year-olds, and, if a relationship continues in an establishment in which one of the people is a professional—
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in the example that I gave about one member of a couple in a long-standing relationship beginning to suffer from some sort of mental disorder and the other caring for him or her, we are talking about adults. Will the noble Baroness acknowledge that that is the position?
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I acknowledge that that is the position in the example that the noble and learned Lord gave. However, if a person works in an institution as a professional and is having a sexual relationship with one of the people in it, it would be improper to accept it simply because there had been a prior relationship. In education, such a situation has been deemed to be improper by the Secretary of State. The same should apply in the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
We shall return to the matter. The noble and learned Lord has not understood the point that we make. It will be very difficult. There is a choice for the person in such a position: they should work in a different establishment and should not compromise their position. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 28 [Sexual activity with a child family member]:
[Amendments Nos. 94 and 95 not moved.]
Clause 29 [Inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity]:
[Amendments Nos. 96 and 97 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 98 to 100:
Page 14, line 43, leave out subsection (4).
Page 15, line 7, leave out "Unless subsection (4) applies,"
Page 15, line 10, leave out "(4) or"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 30 [Family relationships]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 101:
Page 15, line 23, after "half-sister" insert "step-sibling or foster-sibling"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 101, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 to 105 in the group.
The amendments would significantly change the way in which family members and others are brought within the ambit of the familial child sex offences in Clauses 28 and 29. In Committee, the Minister, when referring to the familial relationships that should be covered, said:
"It is clear that the most important factors are the proximity of the relationship and the balance of power that exists between the abuser and his victim… The definition of the family unit also

21
needs to be drawn widely to reflect the fairly loose structure of the modern family and the sometimes transitory nature of familial relationships".—[Official Report, 10/4/03; col. 386.]
We do not dissent from that, but we find it surprising that Clause 30 should produce a hierarchy of relationships, involving, first, some close family members; then, some other family members but only if they lived or had lived in the same household or had some care relationship; and, finally, some non-family members who lived in the same household and had some form of care relationship.
We did not find that logical. It meant that step-siblings were included only if they were in the last category. Similarly, the spouse or partner of a child's aunt or uncle was included only in the last category. In Committee, we concluded that that would have excluded the uncle of the murdered teenager, Danielle Jones, and we felt that that was not right.
The amendments would include all with a family relationship within the ambit of the familial child sex offence provisions. Not only would blood relationships count, but step- and foster siblings would be included. The spouses or partners of all the core family relations set out in subsection (2)(a) would be included. The rationale is that the existence of the relationship is the crucial factor. I am sure that we can all quote from personal experience examples of how a grandparent has been so remote from his or her grandchild that any position of power is negligible, while uncles, such as that of Danielle Jones, can establish strong power-based relationships. That is why it is right that the family relationship should not be qualified by the need for a family member to live in the household or have a caring relationship.
We are not sure that the catch-all provision in subsection (4) is necessary. If it is required, there is no need to confine it to relationships that rest on current residence and caring. Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 would extend the subsection to cover past residence and caring. If a position of power has been set up in a family setting, current residence may not be needed to keep it alive and capable of abuse.
The government amendments in this group respond in part to the issue of step-siblings that I raised in Committee. I am grateful that the Government have looked again at this issue. The Minister's amendments certainly improve the clause, but we do not think that what is proposed is enough. My amendments are more radical and provide a greater degree of protection to young people. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, when we last debated this issue, the Minister said:
"The definition of the family unit also needs to be drawn widely to reflect the fairly loose structure of the modern family and the sometimes transitory nature of familial relationships".—[Official Report,10/4/03; col. 386.]
It seems to me that my noble friend's Amendments Nos. 101 to 105 do exactly that.
It is highly anomalous that the familial abuse provisions of this Bill, as currently worded, should include step-parents and foster parents—as they do when taken together with the corrigendum sheet for
22
Clause 30—but should not include siblings related in the same way. The relationships between foster siblings and step-siblings can be just as close as between full and half-blood siblings. There is certainly just as much opportunity for abuse. For example, an older step-brother can exert almost as much influence as a step-parent. It cannot be right to exclude them from the scope of subsection (2) of this clause.
Government Amendment No. 103A addresses step-siblings, but it places them in subsection (3), thereby requiring proof that they lived together in the same household or that one cared for the other. My noble friend's approach is better. It places them instead within subsection (2) where they are automatically covered by the offence.
I understand Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 take a similar approach to cousins and ex-spouses or ex-partners of those mentioned in Clause 30(2)(a). It deems them as automatically covered by the offence. I think that my noble friend's approach is correct. It is unhelpful to apply a kind of "residence" test before extending the protection of the law to a victim of familial sex abuse. I hope that the Minister will accept my noble friend's amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have already supported the rationale of these amendments and repetition will not add any weight to that support. But I shall support them again today.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these are important amendments and it is an important area. Amendments Nos. 101 to 105 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and supported by the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, are designed to extend the scope of the child familial sex offences which are designed to protect children within the family environment. We have given a great deal of thought to which relationships should be covered and what the criteria for inclusion should be. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, pointed out, there are differing ways in which one gets included in the format of our Bill.
In Committee, I explained that we had crafted the offences on the basis that there are three categories of person who could be said to be in a familial relationship with a child and who would be able to abuse a position of power and influence in their lives in order to manipulate them into a sexual relationship. These are core family members, covered by subsection (2); wider family members, such as the partner of the child's parent who lives or has lived in the same household as the child or who holds or has held a position of trust or authority in relation to the child, covered by subsection (3); and, finally, other persons who are living in the same household as the child and who hold positions of trust or authority in relation to the child at the time of the alleged offence, covered by subsection (4). Those are the three categories and the criteria.
Amendment No. 101 seeks to treat step-siblings and foster siblings in the same way as full and half-blood siblings for the purpose of child familial sex offences.

23
In Committee, I agreed to consider a similar amendment. We have decided that step-siblings and their equivalent through partnership rather than marriage and foster siblings should be brought within the scope of subsection (3). That means that the relationship will only be covered if the parties either live or have lived in the same household or if one of them is or has been regularly involved in caring for, training or being in sole charge of the other. Government Amendments Nos. 103A, 103B and 105A will introduce those changes to the Bill.
I think that they should be included in subsection (3) rather than subsection (2) as proposed by the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, because step-siblings share one parent only through marriage or partnership. There is no blood tie and they may never actually live together in the same household or have a position of power or influence in the young person's life. I do not believe that there is any reason why they should automatically be excluded from sexual relationships and should only be covered by the offences if they fulfil one of the criteria in subsection (3).
Similarly, although foster siblings would share the same set of foster parents and might live together as part of a family unit, they may also be fostered at very different times and may never actually live together in the same household. Again, that is the reason for putting it in subsection (3) rather than in subsection (2).
Including step-siblings and foster siblings in subsection (3) will ensure that they would be covered if they ever lived in the same household or if one of them at any time takes on the role of regularly caring for, training or being in sole charge of the other. That is when we believe the potential for familial abuse would arise and when the intervention of the criminal law is justified.
Amendment No. 102 would have the effect of moving cousins and existing or ex-partners of the child's parents into the scope of subsection (2). Again, we can see no justification for automatically criminalising consensual sexual activity with these family members unless they actually assume a familial role by living in the same household or regularly caring for, training or being in sole charge of the cousin or the child. These are the circumstances in which the risk of familial abuse is most likely to arise. We believe that these are the circumstances in which these offences should apply. Examples have been given during the course of earlier debate and noble Lords will know that those particular advances were covered by the much more serious offences for which the person involved was charged. It is always possible to identify examples of people in relationships way beyond those that any of us seek to include. We should be careful to ensure that a measured approach is taken.
Amendment No. 102 would bring also within the scope of subsection (2) partners and ex-partners of grandparents, siblings, half-siblings and aunts and uncles. For the reasons I have just explained, I do not see a real basis to include those categories within the
24
scope of subsection (2). I am satisfied that the appropriate action is for them to be covered if they fulfil the criteria in subsection (4) which applies if the parties are living in the same household and one of them is regularly involved in caring for, training or being in sole charge of the other. Your Lordships will recall that we included partners and ex-partners of aunts and uncles in subsection (3) of the first print of the Bill and that we have decided to withdraw this provision and to include them only if they fall within the scope of subsection (4). We believe that this is proportionate to the circumstances in which a child is likely to be at risk from abuse.
I note that Amendment No. 103 would have the effect of striking out subsection (3) but realise that it is intended to be purely consequential upon Amendments Nos. 101 and 102 being accepted, as this would make subsection (3) redundant. Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 are intended to widen the scope of subsection (4) so that it would cover anyone who lives or has lived in the same household as the child and is or has been regularly involved in looking after the child, as defined. That would make the scope of subsection (4) too wide. The subsection is intended to cover those who have got no blood or familial relationship with the child or whose relationship is very distant in circumstances where a real opportunity for an abusive or exploitative relationship exists.
The criteria of subsection (4) mean that anyone living in the same household as the child and regularly involved in caring for, training or being in sole charge of the child at the time of the alleged offence and, as a result, in a real position of power and influence in the child's life, will be covered by these offences. We think that these are the right criteria to apply. As drafted, the amendments would capture the au pair even after he or she has left the household and no longer has a caring role in the young person's life. Nor would we want to catch, for example, the ex-lodger who continues to give a young person driving lessons after moving on to live elsewhere.
We believe that there are certain categories which should be caught only by the child familial sexual offences while living in the same household as the child and taking on a certain role in the child's life. That is the purpose fulfilled by the existing subsection (4) and we do not want to change it. We think that the balance has got to be struck in a sensible place and that we have got it about right. For the reasons given, I cannot accept Amendments Nos. 101 to 105, but would urge noble Lords to accept Amendments Nos. 103A, 103B and 105A. I resist the amendment before us.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Blatch for her support and the Minister for his reply. The difference between the Government and ourselves is straightforward. The noble and learned Lord sees whether the individuals are living together and in a caring relationship as the critical criteria. We say that proximity in the context of extended family relations is the critical event in triggering the relationship.

25
As to the non-family relationships in Clause 30(4), the Minister referred to a continuing relationship after an au pair had left his or her employment. If the relationship with the young person who was capable of being abused had built up during that time, which is what grooming is all about, it would fall outside the clause. That concerns us.
We agree with the noble and learned Lord on the need for a measured and balanced approach but we see that occurring in slightly different places. I shall consider further the Minister's response and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 102 and 103 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 103A and 103B:
Page 15, line 29, after "cousins," insert—
"( ) one of them is or has been the other's stepbrother or stepsister,"
Page 15, line 30, after first "parent" insert "or present or former foster parent"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 104 and 105 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 105A:
Page 16, line 3. at end insert—
"( ) "stepbrother" and "stepsister" include the child of a parent's partner"
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Economic and Monetary Union
4.2 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, with the leave of the House, 1 shall now repeat a Statement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Statement is as
follows:
"With permission Mr Speaker, for many decades governments formed from both sides of this House have made the case for Britain's engagement in the European Union. And it is right that at every point we show that every decision we make on Europe is made in Britain's national economic interest.
"So today I will, first, set out the economic context for the euro decision; secondly, the case in principle, in the national economic interest, for membership of the euro; thirdly, the detailed conclusions of our assessment; and finally, the policy changes that our country must now make.
"Let me start with the economic context. Since 1997 every economic decision of this Government has been designed to build and then entrench stability in order to achieve for Britain high and sustainable levels of employment and growth.
"The commitment to put stability first led us to adopt a new fiscal and monetary regime, to make the Bank of England independent, to cut debt
26
substantially; it has given us low inflation, low interest rates and low unemployment; and it is this commitment to long-term stability, growth and employment that is the foundation of our decisions today.
"Central to the pursuit of stability, growth and employment by governments of both parties has been our membership of the European Union. Our assessment shows that Britain's trade with the European Union has grown from just over 40 per cent of our total trade in 1973, when we joined, to 55 per cent today. And membership of the European Union is central to stability, growth and employment for another reason.
"Just as Britain benefits from being part of Europe, so too Britain stands to benefit from an enlarged Europe that is more integrated into the global economy—with globalisation increasingly moving Europe away from an exclusive trade bloc to a Europe that has to look outwards, not least to the United States of America—a Europe which, to meet global competition, has to liberalise and reform.
"So, in addition to our decisions on the euro, we today make proposals that, by reducing tariffs and regulatory and competition barriers to EU-US trade will fulfil our objective of a fully effective transatlantic economic partnership between Europe and the USA. And following the joint declaration by all EU Finance Ministers placing, for the first time, labour market flexibility and structural economic reform at the heart of the new European economic policy guidelines, the Government will later this week publish our further proposals for economic reform in Europe.
"I have no doubt that an enlarged Europe pursuing—like Britain—economic reform, and—like Britain—modernising monetary and fiscal policies, will be conducive to British stability, growth and employment; and around this, I believe that a modern pro-European consensus in Britain can be built.
"It is in this context—with stability the foundation, with membership of the European Union central to our economy—that we must decide whether joining the euro now is in the national economic interest. It is a decision of far-reaching consequence indeed and—because it is irreversible—one of the most momentous economic decisions our country has to take, and one that must contribute to the attainment of stability, growth and employment.
"When in 1997 I set out the Government's position on the euro, I listed the potential benefits for Britain of a successful single currency in transparency of costs, currency stability, trade and long-term interest rates. The detailed work set out in the background papers published today allows us to set out those benefits with even greater precision.
"The first benefit is lower transaction costs for business and consumers. We estimate these as worth around 0.1 to 0.2 per cent of GDP—£1 billion a year. The gain is greater for smaller companies and

27
the gain is permanent. The second is diminished exchange rate volatility, with gains for both large and small companies, especially in the manufacturing sector, with again potentially the greatest gains for smaller companies.
"The third benefit is greater cross-border trade and thus the potential for increased commerce and growth. Our assessment makes clear that, with the advent of the single currency, trade within the euro area has already expanded and that, with Britain in the euro, British trade with the euro area could increase substantially—perhaps to the extent of 50 per cent over 30 years.
"Next, interest rates. For 30 or 40 years continental Europe has been able to combine stability with consistently lower interest rates than in Britain, to the benefit of business and of course home owners. Indeed, over the past 30 years interest rates in Britain have had to be, on average, 3 per cent higher than in Germany. With Britain in the euro, business could benefit through greater access to a more integrated European capital market. And if, on the basis of sustained and durable convergence, we could lock in stability for the long term, then business could see a cut in the cost of borrowing on a sustainable basis, with a long-term boost to cross-border investment flows and foreign direct investment in the UK.
"So I can today confirm the principled case. Our view that membership in a successful single currency would be of benefit to the British people as well as to Europe is strengthened by the results of our assessment.
"While we argue the case in principle for joining, there are those who rule out joining the euro for ever as a matter of dogma—even if it were shown to be in the best economic interests of the country. That cannot be right for the future of Britain. The Government's view is that if the economic case is clear and unambiguous, then the constitutional issue, while a factor in the decision, should not be a barrier to entry.
"My conclusion is that if, on the basis of the five economic tests, membership of the euro is shown as good for sustaining British jobs, business and future prosperity, then it is economically right and in the national interest to join. Indeed, our assessment on trade and output is that inside the euro, UK national income could rise over a 30-year period by between 5 and 9 per cent—boosting, subject to convergence, potential output and national wealth by up to one quarter percentage point a year, worth up to £ billion a year, delivering higher living standards and lower prices for consumers and households.
"Just as there are risks of joining before a clear and unambiguous case has been demonstrated, so too there are risks in delaying the potential benefits once sustainable and durable convergence has been achieved. So from the assessment that we have done, I have no doubt, first, about the potential benefits to Britain and the British people of joining; secondly,
28
the potential risks of delaying the benefits of joining; and thirdly, the advantages inside the euro area of greater influence over policy towards the euro and thus Europe.
"Provided that the crucial tests are met concerning the British economy, it is our intention to join. If, on the basis of the five tests, we can make a clear and unambiguous case, then this Government's view is that it is in the national interest to recommend to the British people to vote yes in a referendum to join the single currency. In short, if the economics are right for Britain, we should join.
"So let me turn to the conditions that have to be met if we are to secure the potential benefits of the euro. We must be sure that there is cyclical and structural convergence between Britain and the euro area, and the flexibility to withstand stresses and strains. Indeed, the more flexibility in the economy the easier it is to tackle problems that arise from the divergence of business cycles.
"Sustainable convergence means the British economy can live on a permanent basis with euro area interest rates, able to advance our objectives of high and stable levels of growth and employment and sustained and stable funding of our schools, hospitals and other public services. The flexibility required is—as I said in 1997—sufficient flexibility, sufficient to be able to adjust our economy quickly to any shocks that arise so that we do not put at risk these objectives.
"So it is my duty to demonstrate in detail, whether we have secured for Britain: convergence; that is, compatibility with our European partners that is sustainable—the first test; sufficient flexibility—the second test; and can affirm conclusively and confidently to the British people that the potential benefits for investment, financial services and employment, growth and trade—the other three tests—can indeed be realised.
"The five tests are our stability guarantee: to meet them would ensure that we will not put at risk our economy or our public services. With the tests met, Britain in the euro can enjoy the benefits I have outlined—greater trade, investment and employment. If we entered with the tests not met at the wrong exchange rate then—just as with the ERM in 1992—
we could see unemployment rise, public service investment fall and growth stall. The discipline of the five tests is to ensure there will be no repeat of the experience of the ERM when Britain joined at the wrong rate and at the wrong time without either convergence or flexibility and the potential benefits could not be realised.
"In our 1997 assessment we took the view that a period of stability was required to ensure that business cycles and structures converged sustainably and durably. We concluded that UK interest rates were higher than in the euro area and remained higher because of structural differences, particularly in the housing market. The new assessment we publish today also shows that, because of a lack of convergence with

29
the euro area, joining in 1999—as some in this House advocated—would not have secured the stability inside the single currency that we have enjoyed outside it.
"Cutting interest rates substantially to join the euro below the level that would have been right for Britain in the short-term, and joining at an exchange rate that was too high for the long-term, could have locked us into another cycle of stop-go economics. But I can tell the House that the consistent polices we have pursued since 1997—an independent central bank; new fiscal rules; lower debt; housing market reform; and greater flexibility in labour, capital and product markets, including an independent Competition Commission—have contributed to meeting quite comfortably the Maastricht criteria for nominal convergence—in a better position than some current members were in 1997 and even are now—but are also leading towards the sustainable convergence and greater flexibility required by the five tests.
"We can report that since 1997 there has been significant progress in achieving cyclical convergence. The short-term interest rate divergence between Britain and the euro area has fallen from 4 percentage points to 1.75 percentage points. Long-term interest rates have virtually converged today at around 4 per cent. Over the past six years there has been a weaker euro and a stronger pound. And the inflation rate has been on average 1.1 per cent below the euro zone average for the past three years. Over recent months the euro exchange rate has strengthened against sterling and the dollar and we are today publishing an independent study examining the sustainable level for sterling reflecting economic fundamentals.
"The issue at the present time is, however, being sure that there is structural convergence that is sustainable for the long-term; and we also have to be sure that, if real interest rates or business cycles do diverge, Britain will have the necessary flexibility to sustain stability, growth and employment. We do not know whether or how shocks will occur but there are risks for the UK. Let me give the House two specific examples—one from housing, one of inflation
generally—of how in the new circumstances we would need to respond.
"Take the challenge of an inflation rise particular to Britain from, say, the housing market. For a 1 per cent rise in British inflation, the British interest rate would, other things being equal, tend to rise by 1.5 per cent. The real interest rate; that is, the interest rate after taking account of inflation, would therefore rise by 0.5 per cent as we brought inflation under control and back to its target. Inside EMU, Britain's economy would be one fifth of the euro area economy.
"A 1 per cent inflation rise specific to the UK which would, today, lead to a British interest rate rise of around 1.5 per cent would lead to a euro-area interest rate rise of about a third of a per cent—a real interest rate fall for the UK of around two-thirds of
30
a per cent. As a result, real interest rates for Britain which ought to increase could actually decline. And it is for this reason that, inside the euro, governments need other forms of flexibility. And, if inside the euro Britain's inflation rose faster than that of the euro area, Britain would suffer a loss of competitiveness. So to restore lost competitiveness a period of higher inflation than the euro area would have to be followed by a period of inflation lower than the rest of the euro area.
"These two examples show why it is important to learn the lessons not just from the experience of the euro area but also from how the states and regions adjust flexibly in the United States monetary union. In other words we must be sure of sustainable convergence and that if business cycles do diverge or shocks arise Britain has the price and wage flexibility—and fiscal flexibility—to ensure stability.Our assessment finds that obstacles to convergence do not lie in the provision of small business finance or large company finance where in fact overall, on business finance, the UK economy is found to be not more interest rate sensitive than others.
"The issue in housing, where we are more interest rate sensitive, is not the attainment of identical market structures with other countries—all countries have unique features of their market—but the fact that to deliver stability in Britain the combination of house price inflation and volatility, and the impact of both on consumption, has generally led to interest rates higher than in other countries.
"Indeed most stop-go problems that Britain has suffered in the past 50 years have been led or influenced by the housing market. The volatility of the housing market and the potential for higher inflation is a problem for stability that we are determined to do more to address to produce greater stability and reduce the risks of inflation irrespective of the decision on the euro.
"Because Britain has experienced difficulty in balancing housing supply and demand, we propose to build upon and extend the reforms already announced by the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of planning and supply including simpler planning guidance, speeding up decisions, reserve powers to call in applications and the case for binding local plans. Having asked Kate Barker to conduct a review of issues underlying the lack of supply and responsiveness of housing in the UK, we will bring forward further proposals in the pre-Budget report and Budget on how we can produce greater stability in our housing market.
"And because Britain has had a different system of housing finance—just 7 per cent of mortgages in the UK are at long-term fixed rates—we are learning the lessons from other countries; for example, in America they securitise long-term fixed rate mortgages. An independent review is now examining the structure of mortgage finance including the case for, and how we can help the development of, the long-term fixed rate mortgage

31
market in the UK. So further housing market reforms will be put in place over the coming year; reforms right in any event for the British economy; reforms that will help ensure that, by having a reduced propensity to house price inflation, stability can be further entrenched.
"It is right to consider a further change that is right in itself and will foster convergence—a new target for domestic inflation. The advantage of the current indicator of inflation—RPIX—is that it is known; well understood; and has served us well. The advantage, however, of the internationally recognised index of consumer prices—HICP—is that it is a better measure, will improve the quality of our target, is in line with best international practice and is used by every other G7 nation but Japan, and by our neighbours in Europe.
"I turn from issues of convergence to issues of flexibility. To strike the right balance between fairness and flexibility in pursuit of full employment, we have introduced a minimum wage and a new tax credit system which guarantees a national minimum income for single persons and couples over 25 and families. So no-one need fear that when they move jobs or move areas, they will lose national income guarantees.
"With this national framework for fairness in place, it makes sense to recognise that a more considered approach to local and regional conditions in pay offers the best route to full employment. In addition, in the south east, where professionals have benefited from London weighting and other arrangements, many lower-paid workers have missed out. So in future we plan to publish data on regional prices and inflation. Remits for pay review bodies and for the public sector including the Civil Service will, within their nationally determined frameworks, include a stronger local and regional dimension; and the reform of housing benefit will remove disincentives to work or to move. These measures, which will be put in place over the coming year, can make Britain, with already the lowest unemployment of the main industrialised countries and 1.5 million more jobs than 1997, the most employment friendly country in the world.
"The other form of flexibility is fiscal flexibility. And because of our history of stop-go, prudence dictates a cautious approach.
"Some countries have proposed new domestic procedures for faster and more effective adjustment of their fiscal policies in the euro area. In the principles we have applied to British monetary policy, to ensure stability and flexibility we have insisted on clear symmetrical rules, well-understood procedures and enhanced transparency.
"Central to this is the open letter system—a means of dealing with potential pressures. To promote stability and flexibility in future, the same principles should be applied to any new arrangements for British fiscal policy inside EMU.
32
So to ensure stability inside the euro area we will consult on the case for an open letter system on fiscal policy and a new and additional fiscal rule. We propose a regular fiscal stability report, published on a pre-announced timetable to Parliament, ensuring that fiscal decisions are fully transparent and accountable and made by Parliament; an assessment in it of the gap between actual and trend output in the economy; and when actual output materially diverged from its trend, an open letter sent by the Treasury to Parliament setting out the Government's response. In this way, in EMU, the principles underpinning our monetary policy regime, which has been successful in delivering stability, would be mirrored in a similar fiscal policy regime.
"So let me give the conclusions on each of the five tests, the full details of which—the benefits and the challenges—are set out in the Treasury's assessment and the 18 accompanying documents, which cover in an open and full way all aspects of economic policy and all of which are now available for open public debate.
"On convergence, on long-term interest rates we have made significant progress in lowering inflation expectations and establishing a platform of stability. There are grounds too for optimism about increasing compatibility of business cycles and market structures. Today interest rates which were 4 per cent above those of the euro area are now 1.75 per cent higher. Structural differences remain that could pose a risk to stability unless addressed, which they are by the proposals I will put forward today.
"On flexibility, the assessment shows that considerable progress has been made to reform markets in the UK and euro area. Flexibility—right in itself for every economy—has improved in the British and European economies. And the more flexibility in the economy the easier it is to deal with problems when cycles diverge and the better it is for our competitiveness. Yet, as the persistence of volatility in inflation rates within the euro area demonstrates, we cannot be certain that there is as yet sufficient flexibility to deal with the possible stresses. It is for these reasons that we are making structural reforms that will bring increased flexibility.
"On investment, the assessment shows that inside the euro there will be new opportunities for investment, in particular foreign direct investment. And at all times, by continuing to maintain macroeconomic stability and encouraging flexibility, the Government will continue to ensure that the UK retains our position as a magnet for foreign direct investment. We have taken particular account of the views, the qualitative evidence, from Japanese, other Asian, American and European investors, many of whom have said membership would be beneficial and is important to them. There can be confidence that, on the basis of sustainable and durable convergence, a

33
successfully operating EMU and UK membership of it on the right terms would boost investment and FDI over the longer term.
"On financial services, the assessment shows that in or out of the euro UK financial services, wholesale and retail, are and will remain competitive. Future integration of financial markets inside the euro could promote the kind of diversity, flexibility and risk diversification seen in the capital markets of the USA, making it easier for a more flexible Britain to win business throughout the euro area.
"On employment, stability and growth—the fifth test—the potential benefits in increased trade and competition and then higher long-term levels of output and employment are significant. Without sustainable convergence and sufficient flexibility, we would not realise the potential benefits for stability, jobs and investment.
"It is because we will never put stability at risk that the tests we set were and are indeed high ones; namely, to show a clear and unambiguous case for British membership. So we conclude the financial services test is met. We still have to meet the two tests of sustainable convergence and flexibility. Subject to the achievement of sustainable convergence and sufficient flexibility, the tests for investment and employment would be met.
"So I am today announcing major reforms right for the British economy, reforms which will be implemented over the next year and will greatly assist the process of achieving sustainable and durable convergence and the flexibility necessary for Britain to succeed sustainably within the euro zone and realise its potential for trade and investment.
"Under Bank of England legislation it is my duty to set the inflation target. I have written to the Governor of the Bank of England today stating that subject to confirmation at the time of the pre-Budget report I intend to change the inflation target at that time. The inflation target for Britain will be set on the consumer prices definition. I can confirm that pensions and benefits and index-linked gilts will be calculated on exactly the same basis as now. We have said throughout that we do not believe it necessary or right to rejoin the ERM.
"I am asking by the time of the pre-Budget report for interim reports on the step changes we need in the planning and supply of housing and on the market for long-term fixed rate mortgages. I am today publishing for consultation our proposals for a new system within EMU of fiscal reporting to Parliament. As part of radical reforms at a national, regional and local level, I propose that by next year almost all pay remits for public sector bodies will include a regional or local pay dimension. And we will publish six-monthly reports on trends and progress in flexibility in labour, product and capital markets.
"At this particularly uncertain time for the world economy—with adjustments only recently in the exchange rate—and when we do not know the
34
future path of growth and inflation rates in Britain and Europe, it is right prior to the point of transition, and in the light of progress, to consider both the exchange rate and the balance of monetary and fiscal policy.
"We will also continue to pursue our objective of a stability and growth pact that takes into account the economic cycle, debt sustainability and public investment, and seek reform of the European Central Bank. It is also important that we resolve the uncertainties over the European convention and we will continue to pursue our objective of tax competition and reject tax harmonisation in Europe. We will report back on progress in all these areas of reform in the Budget next year.
"It is this resolve to implement far reaching reforms in our economy that is the practical and best expression of our intent. It is a reform agenda—right for Britain's economic interest and right to help meet the five tests; a reform agenda on which I believe there is a realistic prospect of making significant progress over the next year.
"The Government believe that the implementation of these reforms, right in themselves, would help towards sustainable and durable convergence and flexibility so that we can, within the euro area, achieve high and stable levels of growth and employment and deliver our objectives for public services.
"We will report on progress in the Budget next year. We can then consider the extent of progress and determine whether on the basis of it we make a further Treasury assessment of the five tests which, if positive next year, would allow us at that time to put the issue before the British people in a referendum.
"I can announce the publication of the draft Referendum Bill this autumn; the introduction of further paving legislation for additional departmental allocations for preparations; the publication today of the full and complete version of the British national changeover plan setting out the possible timetable for a changeover, the management of it, the impact on consumers, business, financial services, the voluntary sector and the public sector.
"I propose Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish preparation committees that will examine local, regional and sectoral preparations. I am also asking representatives from consumer organisations, local authorities, the voluntary sector and the regional development agencies to join the Standing Committee on Euro Preparations.
"I will publish a detailed report on euro preparations within government, the public sector and across the economy this autumn. I will shortly be issuing guidance to local authorities on preparations, and from the publication of the changeover plan will come a period of information and discussion in each region and nation of the country, including in each constituency.

35
"So in this Statement we strengthen our commitment to and support for the principle of joining the euro, showing that the gains to the country and to our businesses are greater than anticipated. We have shown how financial services would benefit from membership of the euro. We have shown how, with sustainable convergence and flexibility, investment can benefit from membership of the euro. We have shown how, with convergence and flexibility, employment can benefit from membership of the euro. We have shown the critical importance of achieving sustainable and durable convergence and I have announced major reforms to be implemented immediately and over the next year.
"At all times we have and will put stability and the national economic interest first.
"We have set out the real benefits to Britain of membership of the single currency; shown that with the achievement of sustainable convergence and flexibility all five tests could and can be met; and laid down the concrete and practical steps which we will follow; radical steps which set out a new direction for reform; steps which set out the clear path ahead for Britain.
"And with a programme of European economic reform benefiting Britain, I believe a modern longterm and deep seated pro-European consensus in Britain about Britain's role in Europe and Europe's role in the world can and will be built. I commend the Statement to the House".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, I thank the Minister and the usual channels for arranging for our House to hear this historic Statement promptly. Having looked through the documents this morning, I would like to begin by paying my respects to Gus O'Donnell and his foot soldiers at the Treasury, for a work of outstanding scholarship for which they deserve great respect. It is a pity that the same cannot be said for their generals.
As noble Lords have just heard, today the Government ran away from a referendum on joining the euro. We should ask ourselves how they got into this demeaning position. They convinced themselves—and thought that they could convince us—of two flawed propositions, both of which have unravelled today.
First, they said that the economic questions could be settled by their five tests. They tried to imbue their tests with the aura of scientific objectivity, but the public, being shrewd, reject that. That is why people are resolutely unmoved by the outcome of these tests. Only 2.4 per cent of them believe that today's decision about the euro is based on the tests. Seventy-eight per cent say that the tests are,
"A smokescreen for a political decision".
36
People have worked out that these tests were not devised in a laboratory by men in white coats with microscopes. So even after 2,000 pages of heroic Treasury effort, there are profound economic questions that remain.
Let us consider the governing framework of the euro, the stability and growth pact. The Economist described this pact as,
"The single best argument against joining the euro".
The European Central Bank says that our state-funded health care system is incompatible with this pact. Is this why Bill Morris of the transport union says that it is,
"Hello euro, goodbye NHS"?
Perhaps this loss of control may not matter, we would still have control of our tax policy except for Europe's new constitution. As even Mr Hain, the Minister for Europe, now agrees:
"The articles put forward could remove rights of member states to determine their own tax system".
Loss of control of monetary policy, loss of control of fiscal policy, is that what people want? Many other questions remain and perhaps the Minister could address some of them in his response.
Why has the euro not helped euro-zone GDP growth, which is lower than ours since the euro was introduced? Why is unemployment in France and Germany double ours? Why is Germany in official recession? Why is France in breach of its borrowing limits? What of investment? President Chirac lamented,
"The decline over several years of the ability of France to attract foreign capital".
Why, when the euro-zone was supposed to attract capital? Why have 600,000 public sector workers taken to the streets of Paris to protest at the reduction in their state pension? Is that what the Government are running away from?
Consider what the Chancellor described as the most critical of the five tests: convergence. Does not the Government's own assessment of UK business cycles published today, conclude in paragraph 9.2 that we are more converged with the US than with Europe? Does not Mervyn King, the next governor of the Bank of England, say that the delay needed for a scientific answer to this could be 200 or 300 years?
The tests were given a great task, but they proved unequal to the performance of it. They had an inauspicious birth, in the back of a taxi in Washington, and today an ignominious death. Not many will mourn their passing. The post mortem will show that the cause of death was an excessive burden placed on their backs. They tried to take the weight of "science" on their shoulders and collapsed under the strain.
They could not deliver a clear and unambiguous answer for joining the euro this year, and they never will—so ending for ever the proposition, if anyone ever believed it, that the Government's five economic tests were as robust as the tests of physics.

37
The five tests having failed: what will we have now? Incredibly, according to the Statement that we have just heard, more tests. There is going to be a review of the mortgage market; reports on regional pay; consideration of a new inflation index; consultation about the wording of a Bill. There is even to be a report on the planning application process.
Perhaps I may turn to the Government's second flawed proposition—that our role in Europe is just about economics. The French and German governments now make it crystal clear—and one must acknowledge their honesty and consistency—that their aim is to create a big country called Europe to rival a big country called America. That is what Valery Giscard D'Estaing means when he describes his dream for Europe:
"It will be respected and listened to as a political power that will speak as an equal with the largest powers on the planet".
Consider Jean-Claude Trichet, the governor of the Bank of France. He spelled it out years ago for all to hear when he said,
"Monetary union is the essential precondition for political union".
Romani Prodi, the President of the EU, says it now. He wants,
"A single government for all countries who share the money".
Our own Chris Patten confirms that. He said this week,
"The EU is a fundamentally political project, partly accomplished through economic means".
Only our Government, either through naivety or deceit, makes the doomed attempt to say that our future in Europe is just about money. But the public have worked out, as poll after poll demonstrates, that these are not just matters of economics and, even if they were, the Government's tests are not reliable because they are not scientific.
In the face of that double defeat for their European policy, the Cabinet have staged their humiliating retreat today. The order went out from the Prime Minister, sauve qui peut, so they ran for the hills without a single shot being fired. Their decision: no referendum on the euro; their reason: fear of public opinion.
Today, when the Chancellor delivered his euro Statement in another place, it was he who read the words, but they were dictated by fear. The Government are running away from the people. But that is a race you can never win.
4.28 p.m
Lord Newby: My Lords, it is almost six years since the Chancellor first enunciated the famous five tests, since when there has been almost a Trappist silence from the Government about the issues raised by the tests and a complete failure to discuss the merits and demerits of euro membership.
Now, on virtually the last possible day within the Government's own deadline, like wanderers in the desert come upon a verdant oasis, we now have a surfeit of information, as indigestible as it is impressive.
38
The process followed by the Government has been highly unsatisfactory. There is absolutely no reason why all today's background material could not have been made available to the public when it went to Ministers. There is no reason why individual studies could not have been published when they were completed. There is absolutely no excuse for the fact that many of the issues being raised as significant virtually for the first time now by the Chancellor, could not have been examined and debated several years ago.
I take two examples from the great pile of documents which, of course, I have read in full already. As regards the United States as a monetary union, that could be a chapter in a textbook. When were the submissions from leading academics on EMU received and what is there which is particularly interesting or sensitive about them which means that that document, along with everything else in my box, could not have been published at the time it was completed? These documents have not all been written within the past month or two; some have been sitting in the Treasury for months. Frankly, it is an abuse of the public process to dump them on us this morning and expect us to have made any sense of them by this afternoon.
Further, in my view it is an abuse of process that the Statement is available to Opposition Front Bench spokesmen only in part and only very much at the last minute. This is another facet of the Chancellor's character which we have come to know and to regret. Can the Minister tell us when we will have a chance substantively to debate these matters in the House once we have had time to read the documentation?
Our view is that the tests have effectively been met and that the sixth, unspoken, key test—namely, the exchange rate—is now at a level which will certainly not preclude locking our currency into the euro-zone and joining it.
We also know—some of these issues, but not all, are reflected in the Chancellor's documentation—that our failure to join the euro-zone has already led to less inward investment, to significant transaction and other costs to UK business, to higher consumer prices than in the euro-zone, to higher mortgages, and to a loss of political influence in Europe, not least because our finance Minister is excluded from meetings of the euro-zone.
The key question out of all of this, however, is: does today's announcement really represent a decision by the Government to move actively towards euro membership? Or are we to drift along, as we have in recent years, waiting to see how far the convergence and other criteria are met? How far do the various commitments made by the Chancellor in today's Statement differ from his Statement in 1997 when he said, "The time for indecision is over; the period for practical preparation has begun", and then stopped doing anything about the issue?
There are a number of questions which I hope the Minister may be able to help us with. What is the timetable, not just for publishing the draft Bill on

39
the euro referendum, but for getting it on to the statute book? Why would anyone believe that the publication of today's national changeover plan should require them to spend a very significant amount of money preparing for euro membership? The banks in particular are faced with huge costs if they are to make their systems compatible with euro membership. Having had a very quick, cursory look at the national changeover plan, there is nothing in it that would give me the assurance, as a senior bank executive, to start taking the action needed.
On the question of moving to the harmonised index of consumer prices, I am fascinated to hear that the Chancellor believes that it is a better measure than RPIX. It raises the question why we have not done anything about it up to now. Can the Minister tell us whether changing the basis for measuring inflation, as opposed to changing the target, would require an amendment to the Bank of England Act and, if so, what the timetable for that will be?
On convergence and volatility in inflation rates, presumably the Chancellor has in mind countries such as Ireland, which saw a big increase in inflation when they joined the euro and have subsequently seen that level of inflation fall. Can the Minister tell us how the Chancellor would propose to influence decisions by Ireland and other euro-zone members to bring about the lack of volatility in inflation that he believes so desirable?
Similarly, the Statement refers to changes in the way the ECB operates. Given that we are not in the euro-zone, how in practice does the Chancellor intend to persuade the ECB to change its procedures?
What is new about boom and bust in the UK housing market which is at all relevant to the euro? We have seen cycles of boom and bust in this country for many decades. What will the Chancellor be able to do in practice over the next 12 months—the time which he has set himself—effectively to persuade anyone that boom and bust in housing in this country is a thing of the past?
When the Chancellor says that he wishes to campaign to unite Britain around a pro-Europe consensus—a sentiment with which I completely agree—one wonders what he has been doing over the last six years. He has done absolutely nothing to persuade Britain and the electorate to unite around a pro-Europe consensus. Indeed, if he believes that a pro-Europe consensus is a possibility, he clearly has never listened to a debate in your Lordship's House, even if he believes he can coerce his own Members.
Finally, when will the five tests be reassessed? The Statement holds out the possibility but, frankly, there is still considerable scope for confusion. If I were a captain of industry—an unlikely possibility—I would not feel that today's Statement had given me any certainty at all in terms of my own planning.
The publication of the Government's euro assessment is long overdue. What it means for Britain's relationship with the EU and for the timing of any decision on euro membership remains opaque.
40
The Chancellor has used relatively warm words about the potential benefit of eventual euro membership. If he and the Government really do plan to campaign for a positive engagement in the EU and for active measures to bring about euro membership, he will have full support from these Benches. Given his track record and today's announcement, however, we remain to be convinced.
4.35 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for the serious way in which they have approached this important statement. I am accustomed to the "lucky dip" quotations of the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi. I notice the way that he wanders not only around Europe and the world in search of quotes, but also wanders around in time. I would like to plot them on a time-versus-distance chart to see whether any correlation exists between them. The noble Lords, Lord Saatchi and Lord Newby, having read the 18 documents, are familiar with the concept in which I am indulging.
The noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, started by saying that there were two flawed propositions behind the Government's approach: the first that economic issues were resolved by the five tests: the second, although it came much later and was difficult to put in its context, that the decisions about our role in Europe were matters for economics rather than for politics. I sympathise with him, having had the weekend to read these documents. I think that when he has had the time to read them in more detail he will appreciate that the five economic tests have indeed been at the core of the Government's thinking on economic and monetary union and have suffused the way in which we have approached the matter and the conclusions we have drawn.
If the noble Lord reads the Statement again afterwards, I think that he will see that it does—as does the assessment volume—involve the most serious bringing together of economic thinking on these matters ever, so far as I know. I am not aware that any other country has adopted the same rigorous procedures. He will see that, in particular, the issues of convergence and of flexibility have been critical to our thinking. They have been critical not only to our assessment of the position as of June 2003, but our assessment of what we now have to do about it. What is missing from the comments that have been made is an understanding of the extent to which this Statement marks a sea change.
I remind the House of what the Chancellor said in the Statement. He said that in the Budget there will be a decision whether to make a further Treasury assessment of the five tests which, if positive next year, would allow us at that time to put the issue before the British people in a referendum. We have not said that before. It is very significant. We have not defined convergence as clearly as we have now. I understand the difficulty that people experience in accepting that economists can express a view which is clear and unambiguous, but when Mervyn King is quoted as saying that convergence will take 300 years to

41
determine, what he is talking about is theoretical complete convergence, whereas what we are talking about in relation to convergence is compatibility between business cycles and economic structures. Convergence does not mean that all economies are the same; it means that the direction in which they are moving is compatible. I refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said about the claimed weakness of the economies of the euro-zone. It is desirable—the assessment shows this—when moving towards membership of the euro to do so from a position of strength.
That brings me to what the noble Lord, Lord Newby, said. He implied—although he did not express it as clearly as he sometimes has in the past—that we ought to have joined in 1999. There is perhaps greater recognition now that although there would have been some advantages in joining earlier, in particular in terms of the influence we would have exercised over decision-making in the euro-zone, the loss of stability involved—stability has been the huge achievement of the Chancellor over the past six years—meant that it was not worthwhile doing so. My concluding remark to the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, is that the Chancellor has put stability first throughout the period we are discussing. He did so in 1997 in his Statement on the euro and in the way he has conducted the economic policy of this country in the intervening period. That has been a huge success.
The noble Lord, Lord Newby, asked why we did not publish the reports as they became available. I do not know when they became available. However, in reading as much I could within a concentrated time frame I wrote down the points with which I agreed and the points with which I disagreed within a matter of hours. If I had done that over a period of months I believe that my opinions would have veered to and fro. I would have wanted to ask at that time—but could not have done so—what the Treasury thought about the different views expressed in the EMU studies. It is right to publish the EMU studies together with the Treasury assessment not just for market reasons but also for intellectual reasons. As the noble Lord, Lord Newby, knows, debate in the House is not a matter for me but for the usual channels.
I have said I acknowledge that the fact that we did not join at the beginning has already resulted in losses for us. Of course that is the case. There are figures illustrating the loss of foreign direct investment. There are no figures for the loss of influence involved but it is self-evident. However, that does not mean that it is not right for us now to be making what I believe is a step change in policy on the matter. We are no longer saying that we shall see what the five tests produce; we are saying that the Government are going all out to see to it that the five tests are met. We are also saying—the Statement indicates this very clearly—that the Statement and the Government's policy strengthen the Government's commitment to, and support for, the principle of joining the euro. That is where we stand.
4.44 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that what has been said on behalf of the Conservative Opposition today indicates not only their prescription that we should never join the euro but also that we should not be part of the European Union at all? Does my noble friend agree that that is a prescription for utter defeat? Does he also agree that there is a difficulty in retaining and deploying our influence in the EU against what has been said? Will the Chancellor of the Exchequer take specific steps to ensure that members of the EU, and potential members of the EU, understand our position and test that as it is only through cross-examination that they will understand what our case is?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I concede it to be my duty to respond to what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, said, not what he did not say. I say to my noble friend Lord Clinton-Davis that what the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, did not say is still ringing in my ears. He did not express a view about British membership of the European Union. He was very wise as it is clear that that issue is still very much alive in the Conservative Party. The less that is said from the Front Benches on that matter, the better it will be for the unity of the Conservative Party.
As regards the understanding of other member states of our position, I believe that we are making very substantial progress in that area. In more recent discussions, for example on the stability and growth pact, what the Chancellor has called the prudent interpretation—in other words, the interpretation which takes account of debt sustainability, of the economic cycle and of the need for public investment—is gaining ground among other European member states. The same is true, although perhaps to a lesser extent, of the European Central Bank where windows of opportunity, if I may put it that way, seem to be opening. We have a considerable interest in the matter despite our lack of formal membership of the euro-zone.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for repeating the Statement made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in another place. Many aspects of it are indeed welcome. I refer to the measures announced with respect to the inflation target, the housing market and others. But does the noble Lord agree that those are all measures which ought to have been taken many years ago? They ought to have been taken by the previous government when they committed themselves in the Treaty of Maastricht to the target of entering EMU at the latest in 1999. They are very valuable and necessary measures to take but starting taking them in 2003 is a trifle late. Nevertheless they are welcome.
Will the noble Lord clarify one point? I cannot believe that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, as the Statement seemed to suggest, seriously believed that the question on the examination paper was whether we should enter the euro now. He has already stated on many occasions that even if we took a decision today

43
to move ahead, we would not enter for another two-and-a-half or three years. That is a crucial point because whenever the Chancellor rises to his feet to say that the moment has now come to put the matter to a referendum, we shall be two-and-a-half or three years away from the moment at which we enter EMU. That has considerable implications for how sure one can be of the events that will occur during that period.
I ask a further question about clarity and lack of ambiguity. I must confess, having listened to the Chancellor's Statement, that I believe he has given an entirely new definition to the words "clarity and lack of ambiguity". I felt that he could just as easily have said at the end of the Statement: "I am therefore recommending to the House that we should join economic and monetary union in three years' time". Perhaps that matter can be clarified. Will the noble Lord also say what are the totally British special considerations which mean that we alone in the European Union have to have five extra tests above those laid down in Maastricht? Is it suggested for one minute that the other members of the European Union are not interested in the stability of their economies? They took the decision on the basis of the criteria in Maastricht, which the Chancellor has very reasonably recognised that we, too, fulfil. Why is Britain so different? What makes it necessary for us to erect the hurdles and then trip up as we try to cross them?
Finally, what do the Government have in mind about reforming the European Central Bank? Have they not considered that such reform might be achieved slightly more easily if a British central banker were sitting in that bank? I make a small plea that we are not told at the end of the day that a little mouse called publishing the minutes of the monthly meetings is the said reform.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, publishing the minutes of the monthly meetings would not be adequate evidence of reform of the European Central Bank. The noble Lord's analysis of the position of the bank has a lot of truth in it. In terms of the reforms that we have made over the past six years, particularly in the conduct of monetary policy, the way in which the transparency of decision-making in the Monetary Policy Committee has been enshrined in UK legislation shows very clearly the contrast with the European Central Bank.
That brings me back to the first point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, which was his question as to why we are starting only now, in 2003. We are not starting only now; we have transformed the conduct of monetary policy in this country. We have only to look at the facts about the British economy to see why it is legitimate for the Chancellor to claim that we have the highest level of growth, the lowest interest rates and the highest levels of employment for many years.
I talked earlier about entering from a position of strength. The Government's conduct of the economy over the past six years has given us a position of strength from which it is possible to move on to the specific and very powerful next step, which is that the
44
Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will together go out to the people of this country and put the case for Europe and for British membership of European monetary union.
I do not agree that the five tests are in addition to those of Maastricht. We set them out to pretty universal agreement in 1997. When we talk about convergence—the first test—we ask the question explicitly: are business cycles and economic structures compatible so that we and others can live comfortably with euro interest rates on a permanent basis? I do not know whether other states took that into account when they made their decision about joining the third stage of monetary union but, if they did not, they were very foolish.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, surely the answer to the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, is that only in the United Kingdom do we pretend that EMU is an economic project. Therefore, we set five tests that are entirely bogus for a project that is really designed to hold the mega-state together.
Be that as it may, does the Minister agree that if we look at successful single currency areas elsewhere, they all possess three essential qualities largely absent from EMU? They enjoy common language, mobility of labour and, above all, a federal budget. Surely the Government agree that all those other areas have the ability to move money from rich to poor zones—south to north in the United Kingdom, north to south in Italy, west to east in Germany—as with the federal budget in the United States.
If there are to be any further tests as to whether we should join EMU, should not the cost of the absence of those three essential ingredients be estimated? Or are the Government telling us that they are so in love with the European dream that they are happy for the United Kingdom to end up making massive contributions to the EU budget? If so, surely they should be good enough to give us some idea of the costs. Are not those three ingredients the essential tests for the future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I recommend that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, read the documentation about optimal currency areas, particularly Professor Mundell's question-and-answer evidence, which is contained in the volume of EMU papers on the views of academics. I do not think that he will find the same opinion about the fundamental characteristics of monetary unions.
In particular, I am puzzled by the noble Lord's view that, in order to have monetary union, one has to have a huge federal budget. That was certainly not the characteristic of the monetary union that took place in the United States in 1792—far from it. There was virtually no federal budget at that time, and the states undertook almost all aspects of the budget. A characteristic of the United States' monetary union was an increase in the federal budget. The Government's position is that there will not be an increase in the federal budget of the European Union. That position has been confirmed in budgets for the

45
project period and, so far as I am aware, there is no pressure from either this country or any other for substantial increases in the federal budget.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Layard: My Lords, what plans do the Government have to campaign in support of membership of the euro? So far, we have had the chicken-and-egg problem that we could not have a campaign for public support because there was not going to be a referendum and could not have a referendum because there was not public support. We are now poised to break through that problem with this magnificent Statement, which I tremendously welcome, but what will be the follow-up?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, all that I can say to that is, "Watch this space". The Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be making significant statements on the issue very shortly.
Earl Russell: My Lords, will the Minister join me in admiring the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, for the simplicity with which he can view some of the questions? He is convinced that we are dealing with the creation a big country called Europe. I do not think that he is right but, supposing he were, is there any merit in the view that it ought not to be taken for granted without empirical observation that that is necessarily a bad thing? After all, the kingdom of Sussex was once a sovereign state. I hope that I may presume that it is not Conservative policy that it should have remained so.
Does the Minister also agree that one effect of a supranational umbrella, as of the Holy Roman Empire, is that it makes the survival of small nations a very great deal easier? The prime example is the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg. Will he further remind the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, that one of the most outstanding examples of a successful currency union is the British pound?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am simply not qualified to follow the noble Earl, Lord Russell, down those byways of history. They are probably not byways; they may be highways. I certainly cannot go back to the Holy Roman Empire or the kingdom of Sussex.
Europe is changing. Fifteen nations will be 25 nations, which will inevitably bring about change in the institutional arrangements of the European Union. That is reflected in the convention. I shall not start to comment on the details of the changes that the convention will make, except to say in broad terms that there will clearly not be the establishment of a European super-state. When we come to what is actually put before the intergovernmental conference, and when we come to the processes that we will have to adopt in considering that conference's proceedings, the position will be even further from that of those whom the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, so enthusiastically quotes.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, the fundamental question is whether Britain should give up for all time the main
46
means of adjusting for differential movements in costs and prices between this country and the other European countries, given that we cannot be sure that convergence is permanent. The Chancellor's box of tricks includes a paper on the United States as a currency area.
Would not a more interesting comparison be between what would have happened if after years of convergence the Canadian and US economies had reached the decision that they should have a single currency? If that is analysed, it is clear that there would have been fundamental problems in Canada as regards unemployment. We have to consider the extent we believe that convergence is likely to be permanent.
Secondly, surely it is apparent in the existing euro-zone that there are considerable strains of having a policy of one size fits all. Is it not therefore clear that if we were to join, which would be a substantial increase in the total size, the strain would be likely to be great indeed and may result in the whole enterprise breaking down?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are a very long way from that—and we are a very long way from it on a permanent basis. There were strains at the beginning and looking at the inflation rates in Ireland and Greece, to take two examples, one sees that they experienced difficulties. But the strains tend to converge and to reduce as time goes on. The position of this Government has been entirely consistent: we have always recognised that entry into the third stage of monetary union is an irreversible process. That is why we have been so determined to look at long-term convergence and not simply at short-term convergence; in other words, to resist the siren voices of those who would not have taken that into consideration in 1999.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Carter: My Lords, before the—
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I think it is the turn of the Labour Party.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, the Independent Labour Party.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I think the House wants to hear me. Would my noble friend agree that of all the variables in the modern economy, the three key variables are the exchange rate, the interest rate and the employment rate? If the interest rate and the exchange rate are fixed, would my noble friend agree that distortion in the real economy between regions and countries will have to be corrected by substantial transfers of resources, including labour, if the employment rate is not to be the variable that takes the strain?
Already, the gap between the highest and lowest employment rates in the euro-zone is 8.1 points—3.4 per cent in Luxembourg and 11.5 per cent in Spain—and the gap between average unemployment

47
in the euro-zone and the accession countries is 6 points—8.7 per cent in the euro-zone and 14.7 per cent in the accession countries. Does the Treasury assessment take full account of the transfer of resources that would be required if the economies in the euro-zone are to converge?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, yes, I can give my noble friend Lord Carter that assurance. If he reads the assessment volume, he will see that that is taken fully into account. But it leads me to say that people are expecting a lot from monetary union if they believe that all countries will be equally successful in their economic policy.
Clearly, that is not the case. With the distance that exists between the European Union and the superstate which the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, and others fear, there will always be different economic, fiscal, monetary judgments made by member states. Some of them will be right and some will be wrong and there will be differences. The important issue from our point of view is that we should be entering, as is anticipated here, from a position of strength.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
5.4 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 105B:
After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
"SECTIONS 28 AND 29: SEXUAL RELATIONSHIPS WHICH PRE-DATE FAMILY RELATIONSHIPS
(1) Conduct by a person (A) which would otherwise be an offence under section 28 or 29 against another person (B) is not an offence under that section if—

(a) the relation of A to B is not within subsection (2) of section 30,

(b) it would not be within that subsection if section 67 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002 (c. 38) did not apply, and

(c) immediately before the relation of A to B first became such as to fall within section 30, a sexual relationship existed between A and B.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if at the time referred to in subsection (1)(c) sexual intercourse between A and B would have been unlawful.
(3) In proceedings for an offence under section 28 or 29 it is for the defendant to prove the matters mentioned in subsection (1)(a) to (c)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 32 [Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]:
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 106:
Page 16, line 15, leave out "refuse" and insert "consent"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 106, I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. These flag up a number of issues raised in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, and myself. The amendments have been put forward by a combined group of organisations involved in helping those with mental
48
disorders and learning disabilities. They have concerns about the drafting of Clauses 32 to 37, which they believe are essential in preserving the basic rights of those with a mental disorder or learning disability.
Amendments Nos. 106, 109, 113, 118, 120 and 172 focus on the issue of capacity to consent, which is pivotal to determining whether a relationship is appropriate for a person with a learning disability. However, there is an inconsistency in the Bill as the drafting of Clauses 32 to 37 speaks of "refusing" or,
"choosing to engage in sexual activity",
rather than "consenting". Why do the Government prefer the wording "inability to choose" rather than "inability to consent"? This is not a matter of semantics—we must get these concepts right.
To be able to consent to sexual activity, there are well-established concepts that must be understood for that consent to be valid. These include that sex is different from personal care; that penetrative vaginal sex can lead to pregnancy; and that sex is associated with risk of sexual transmitted infections. I do not think that Clause 76, nor Clause 32 and its related clauses, adequately reflect these principles. Therefore, I am not convinced by the argument used by the Minister in Committee that we should not consider amending the Bill because it might create a circular definition, particularly when the definition in question is not a particularly strong one.
The effect of the clause, as drafted, would mean that some people, like the unfortunate young woman in the Jenkins case, would be regarded as being able to choose to have sex even though they clearly lack the capacity to consent to sexual relations. On that occasion, the judge held that the woman involved had chosen to engage in sex and had consequently consented to the sexual activity because of her "animal instincts". In Committee, my noble friend Lady Blatch pointed out very well this problematical lacuna in the Bill by making clear that where someone was propositioned, but had not consented, and it was shown that she had not refused, there would be no recourse in the courts.
The amendments I proposed would make it absolutely clear that these cases would come within Clause 32 because it is clear that the person could not consent to the sexual activity, even if that person "chose" to have sex with the perpetrator. I hope that I have managed to convince the Minister that "choosing" is not the same as "consent". "Consent" involves understanding what the decision is about and the impact of that decision. Consent must also be freely given. This is not adequately reflected in Clause 76.
Amendments Nos. 107, 110, 114, 119 and 121 aim to avoid implying that people with learning disabilities cannot consent to sexual activities, or that there is a test that must be passed before a person with a learning disability can engage in sexual activity. This Bill must be about protecting people from abuse and not preventing consensual adults from engaging in sex. It is essential that the Bill makes explicit that the capacity test is a functional one. The ability of the individual to

49
consent must be in relation to a specific decision and whether the individual understands at that time the nature and effects of that sexual activity. That recognises that a person may lack the capacity to consent to sexual relations with one person on one occasion, but may be able to consent to have sex with a different individual on a later occasion. That is why my amendment follows the Law Commission's proposal to make it clear that the test is a functional one by inserting the words "at the material time".
Our amendments do not use the term,
"or for any other reason",
which is in the current drafting of the Bill in subsection (2)(a). As it stands a prosecution could be brought against someone even though that person with a learning disability understood the nature of the act and understood the reasonably foreseeable consequences, because for some other undefined reason they were deemed incapable. That is the point that I raised at Committee stage. I appreciate the Government's attempt to ensure that these cases receive protection. However, I feel that by retaining this wording the clause will inadvertently set too high a test for capacity to consent and that that may in practice constrain the freedom of people with a learning disability to engage in consensual sexual relations. I am also still unclear what "other reasons" refers to, as in terms of a capacity test, the key issue is the individual's ability to understand the sexual activity that he or she may engage in and its reasonably foreseeable consequences—not anything else. Otherwise, once again, there is a risk that the Bill may prevent adults with a learning disability, who have the capacity to consent, from engaging in sex.
On a final note, it is important to ensure that the inability to communicate relates to the individual being unconscious or other similar situations, but not to people who would be able to communicate their decision with appropriate support. Our amendments reflect that and provide greater clarity to the principle behind subsection (2)(b). I beg to move.
Lord Rix: My Lords, perhaps I may add my voice in support of these amendments. My name already enjoys third billing on Amendments Nos. 106, 107, 109, 110, 113, 114, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 172. Having reflected on the debate at Committee stage, I am inclined to think that the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, have the balance about right.
In response to my noble friend Lord Adebowale's amendments at Committee stage, which raised similar concerns, the Minister did not seem to argue against their principle, but more on a technical drafting point. However, his reply did not give us the required assurances. The amendments of the noble Lord, Lord Astor, get over those technical hurdles by changing the definition of consent by making it much tighter and more specific.
50
My concern is that, as currently drafted, the capacity test in the second subsections of Clauses 32 to 36 is not sufficiently specific and, therefore, there is a real danger that the offence will be too broadly interpreted. This may lead to unnecessary prosecutions being brought in cases where the sexual activity is actually consensual.
I look again to answers offered at Committee stage and my nagging concern is the wording "for any other reason". Echoing the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, I am still unclear what the "for any other reason" refers to, as in terms of a capacity test, the key issue is the individual's ability to understand the sexual activity and its reasonably foreseeable consequences.
I do not want to move away from the principles behind those new offences. They seek to improve the outdated laws governing sex offences and to protect vulnerable adults from sexual abuse. That is absolutely crucial. Nor do I share the rather exaggerated concerns expressed in some quarters about protection being thinly veiled oppression. However, we have to get the right balance and, as I said in previous debates, Mencap respects the right of all consenting adults to have sex. I believe that the amendments of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor, find the right balance. I am not sure that assurances will do in this instance, but I am happy to listen to what the noble and learned Lord has to say.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I rise to speak to Amendment No. 173, standing in my name and that of my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, and to comment on Amendment No. 172. While we do not believe that every normal English word that is readily understood in the Bill requires definition, we feel that the words "consent" and "capacity" require definition. So much in the Bill depends on a clear understanding of those two words. We already have a definition of "consent", but we do not have a definition of "capacity", which is why we have tabled our amendment.
Having said that, we would have been just as happy to accept Amendment No. 172 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, which achieves much the same outcome and perhaps more as it mentions the word "freedom". Therefore, we hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider the importance of a definition of a word that is key to a clear understanding of the law in the case of sexual offences.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, these amendments address the issue of the definition of the inability to refuse or to consent and go to the core of the clauses where the balance between protection from sexual abuse and freedom to engage in sexual activity is set.
I do not believe that Amendments Nos. 106, 109, 113, 118 and 120 would make a substantive change to those clauses. Capacity to consent is defined in Clauses 32 to 36 inclusive, as "unable to refuse" rather than "unable to consent" because if the latter phrase were

51
used it would refer to the definition of consent in Clause 76 and would be circular because that clause refers to capacity to consent. In a moment I shall turn to the proposal made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, in the amendment to which she has spoken, which is whether we should consider a definition of capacity to consent which may deal with many of the problems. We need to consider that.
I shall go through each of the points that has been raised. Amendments Nos. 107, 110, 114, 119 and 121 propose a number of changes to the definition of inability to refuse. I recognise that there is real concern that because of prejudices that exist about learning disabled adults engaged in sexual activity, those clauses may be interpreted as meaning that some individuals were unable to consent for the whole of their lives. This afternoon I was grateful for the opportunity to discuss that with the National Forum of People with Learning Difficulties, a number of whose members spoke to me about it and whom I am glad to see sitting in the Public Gallery today listening to the debate.
I believe those concerns are unfounded. I am clear that they can apply only "at the material time". Throughout the Bill it is implicit that consent relates to a particular incident rather than applying generally and capacity to consent is drafted on the same basis. I would like to make it absolutely clear that capacity to consent relates to the particular time at which the sexual activity, about which there is a complaint, took place. Therefore, I do not believe that the proposal to add "at the material time" is necessary.
I note that the amendments would replace "possible consequences" with "reasonably foreseeable consequences" and would remove "for any other reason" from the same paragraph. I appreciate that there is a concern that the test of capacity is set at such a level that those with a learning disability may be required to be more aware of the implications of sexual activity than others. The amendment is intended to provide a lower test: awareness of the consequences that are reasonably foreseeable as opposed to those that are possible. But I am not sure that the amendment is necessary. The clause as drafted requires sufficient understanding of the possible consequences of the sexual activity in question. The level of understanding required therefore is qualified so I do not believe that there is any need to refer to "reasonably foreseeable consequences" as opposed to "possible consequences".
I turn to the proposed deletion of "for any other reason" from Clause 32(2)(a). We were concerned to ensure that those who genuinely lack the capacity to consent were protected by the law. However, we are aware that there are concerns that "for any other reason" might wrongly draw people into the scope of the offence because it is so broad.
I shall explain the thinking behind the conclusion. We have received advice that there are people with a mental disorder or learning disability who have sufficient understanding of the nature and consequences of the sexual activity to consent, and who could communicate their consent but nevertheless
52
find it difficult to choose between alternative courses of action. We would not wish to leave such people unprotected; however, we need to consider both points further.
Unconsciousness is dealt with by means of a rebuttal presumption in Clause 77. That will apply regardless of whether the individual has a learning disability. We do not believe that it is necessary or helpful to make a specific reference to unconsciousness in those clauses. Clause 32(2)(b) is intended to protect people who, because of a mental disorder, cannot communicate whether they consent. That does not mean that people with speech difficulties are drawn within the clause. The issue is whether they can communicate consent by any means, not simply speech.
Clauses 172 and 173, which were referred to earlier, are intended to create a generic definition of the capacity to consent that could be used whenever the prosecution seeks to establish that the complainant did not have the capacity to consent at the time of the alleged offence. Amendment No. 172 is based on a Law Commission definition, and Amendment No. 173 is based on the definition that we have adopted in the clauses in Part 1 relating to offences against those with a mental disorder. That is the wording that we would prefer. I am not fundamentally opposed to including in the statute a generic definition of capacity to consent, but we need time to consider the consequences of such a definition, and, if we choose to include one, the best way to formulate it.
Perhaps I may return to the issue at Third Reading, as it is quite important. I repeat that we are very aware of the need in those clauses to balance the need to provide protection with recognising the civil rights of those with a mental disorder or learning disability. For the reasons that I have gone through in, I suspect, tedious detail, I do not feel able to accept the amendments. But I have listened very carefully to the debates on the issue and in my discussions with people outside the House also. It is a very difficult issue to resolve. We will take into account the matters raised as part of our further deliberations on the question of the definition of consent and the other issues raised. I shall return to the matter, if I may, at Third Reading. In the light of what I have said, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his response, which heartened me. I am particularly grateful to him for his explanation of the Government's thinking on the "any other reason" issue. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for his support. In the light of the Minister's very positive response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 107 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to engage in sexual activity]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 108:
Page 16, line 39, leave out "a" and insert "or incites another"

53
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 109 and 110 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 111 and 112:
Page 17, line 6, after "caused" insert "or incited"
Page 17, line 14, after "caused" insert "or incited"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 34 [Inciting a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to engage in sexual activity]:
[Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 115 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 117:
Leave out Clause 34.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 35 [Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]:
[Amendments Nos. 118 and 119 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to watch a sexual act]:
[Amendments Nos. 120 and 121 not moved.]
Clause 38 [Causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 122 to 124:
Page 19, line 15, leave out "a" and insert "another"
Page 19, line 16, after "in" insert ", or to agree to engage in,"
Page 19, line 25, after "caused" insert "or agreed to"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 39 [Causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to agree to engage in sexual activity by inducement, threat or deception]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 125:
Leave out Clause 39.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 42 [Care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]:
[Amendment No. 126 not moved.]
Clause 43 [Care workers: causing sexual activity]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 127:
Page 21, line 24, leave out "a" and insert "or incites another"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 128 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 129:
Page 21, line 33, at end insert "or incited"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 44 [Care workers: inciting sexual activity]:
54
[Amendment No. 130 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 131:
Leave out Clause 44.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 45 [Care workers: sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]:
[Amendment No. 132 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Care workers: causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to watch a sexual act]:
[Amendment No. 133 not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 134:
After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—
"CARE WORKERS: EXCEPTION FOR PURPOSES OF SEXUAL EDUCATION
It shall not be an offence under sections 43 to 46 if a care worker provides sexual education, advice or assistance in accordance with guidelines which have been issued for that purpose by the Secretary of State."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in Committee we had a lengthy debate on this amendment which threw up some interesting points and highlighted problems with the drafting of the two alternative versions that we proposed. It was clear that some people, not least my noble friend Lady Blatch, thought that to include an exemption for those providing sexual education would lead to abuses of the system. People might deliberately seek to become carers in order to use the excuse of providing sexual education and then carry out abuse. Our original amendment included the phrase,
"for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification".
It was argued that that would be impossible to prove and that subsequent convictions would be ha rd to achieve.
We have no wish to create a loophole. We accept that our alternative version about authorisation from the Secretary of State might have been unworkable, as the Minister pointed out. We have therefore tabled Amendment No. 134 on the basis of the Minister's response:
"The noble Lord asks about producing some sort of guidance. We need to think about that, as it seems an important issue. Without giving any assurance, I should like to come back to that on Report and indicate where we have got to".—[Official Report, 28/4/03; col. 541.]
Have the Government thought any further about guidance? We do not want those who undertake sexual assistance to people with a mental disorder or learning disability to be unfairly prosecuted under the clause. We believe that using guidance would clarify the situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, it is with some diffidence that I rise to oppose my noble friend yet again, because I know that he has a real concern about the matter. I shall not repeat the arguments that I raised in Committee when the amendment was first

55
moved. But I remain concerned that the provision would still allow a care worker to cause or incite a patient to engage in sexual activity, to engage in sexual activity in the presence of a patient, or to cause him to watch a sexual act, all free from the risk of prosecution under Clauses 43 to 46. It proposes that the Secretary of State should issue guidance on how that should be done.
My noble friend Lord Astor of Hever told the Committee that he was concerned with care workers who,
"engage in intimate acts as part of a programme of sex education for their patients, for example, facilitating masturbation".
He went on to say:
"It might be hard to prove in reality whether or not a care worker was helping a patient perform a sexual activity for the purposes of obtaining sexual gratification".—[Official Report, 28/4/03; col. 536.]
Even if one accepts that there can be legitimate circumstances in which a care worker carries out such an activity—and I am not absolutely certain that I do—my noble friend has pointed to the danger of creating a category of persons authorised to do such things. In what way can we prevent people from taking advantage of their exemption simply to abuse patients? Setting out the detail in guidance to cover such activities would take the wisdom of Solomon. I certainly would not like to have such a responsibility.
I understand some of the concerns my noble friend has expressed. However, I remain concerned that such exemptions could provide licence for abuse. That I certainly would not support.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, indicated we went through many of these arguments in Committee. I think—I may have misunderstood—that he tabled the amendment in order to probe guidelines rather than as a defence because we have gone through in detail the difficulties of having such a provision as a defence. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, touched on that aspect. We would oppose the clause in relation to it being a defence.
However, I believe that the real question is about guidelines. We have considered carefully. We have consulted about what to do. I fear that the suggestion of tying it to the issue of national guidelines could not work at this time. The nature of sex education in these circumstances is a contentious one about which the views of stakeholders are divided. It seems unlikely that it would be possible to issue early guidelines which would encompass such divergent views. So I fear that I offer no comfort in relation to guidelines.
56
Against that background, we believe that it is a matter which must at present be left to prosecutorial discretion in deciding whether it is in the public interest to bring a prosecution given the circumstances of the case. For those reasons, I must resist the amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for his response. The amendment was tabled in order to probe the issue of guidance. I was sorry to hear what he said.
I understand my noble friend's concerns about the amendment. After a number of discussions with charities and care workers I have satisfied myself that there is a need for the provision. However, in the light of the Minister's response, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 47 [Care workers: interpretation]:
[Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 136:
Page 23, line 36, leave out "or an independent medical agency" and insert ", an independent medical agency, an independent practice or an independent practitioner,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 136, I speak to Amendments Nos. 137, 138 and 142. They all concern the interpretation of care workers and care staff in settings to be covered by the Bill. I thank the Minister for his response in Committee. I table the amendment today as something of a safety measure.
The Government have been laudable in their efforts to ensure that vulnerable adults are protected effectively from abusive care workers. The removal of the residence requirement and the extension to include services and assistance as well as care are most welcome. I refer specifically to government Amendment No. 274 in Committee which amended subsection (4) of Clause 47. However, I seek reassurance from the noble and learned Lord that the amendment is sufficiently broad to ensure that providers operating outside mainstream care provision will be covered by the Bill. I refer to those additional types and forms of provision encompassed in Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 and 142.
In his response to my amendments in Committee, the noble and learned Lord stated that Amendment No. 274 will encompass most of the relationships of care proposed for inclusion. Can the Minister give any assurance that the full range of those relationships of care encompassed by my amendments is covered by Amendment No. 274? Will Clause 47 as drafted cover independent practitioners and practices, including self-employed practitioners, private residences, complementary therapists, counsellors and psychotherapists? I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in Committee I introduced an amendment to Clause 47 which is now Clause 47(4)(a). This covers all those who, whether or not in the course of employment and regardless of the setting, provide care, assistance or services to the complainant in connection with the latter's mental

57
disorder or learning disability. I am satisfied that this definition is sufficiently broad to cover all those referred to in Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 and 142.
I believe that the approach in Clause 47(4)(a) is preferable to citing in legislation lists of too many different types of care because there is always the risk of inadvertently excluding groups which should have been included. It also avoids the uncertainty of having in the legislation such undefined terms as "general healthcare" and "social care".
I hope that that is the assurance the noble Lord seeks and that he will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, in the light of the Minister's very satisfactory response, and his satisfaction that the definition is sufficiently broad, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137 to 140 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 141:
Page 24, line 6, leave out "53(1)" and insert "53"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 142 not moved.]
Clause 49 [Sections 42 to 46: sexual relationships which pre-date care relationships]:
[Amendment No. 143 not moved.]
Clause 53 [Causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 144:
Page 27, line 16, leave out from "to" to end of line 17 and insert "be abused through prostitution, or to be involved in the making or production of abusive or indecent images,"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment. I speak also to Amendments Nos. 148 and 153 which I have tabled on a probing basis, as the Minister is aware. We debated the amendments in Committee and I do not wish to reiterate the arguments at length. I sought to emphasise that the use of the adult terms "prostitution" and "pornography" is completely misleading for juries. Whenever a child is drawn into prostitution and pornography that child is abused. I do not believe that there is serious dispute about that in your Lordships' House. However, it has been far from clear that that was well understood in the wider world. That is why my amendment sought to insert the existence of abuse into the offences.
In Committee, the Minister said that my amendment would make it harder to gain a conviction. Of course, there is no way that these Benches would want to be associated with making it harder to bring to justice the kind of people who corrupt children through prostitution or pornography. Therefore, with the Minister and his officials I have been researching ways of indicating in the Bill that the child offences we are dealing with raise a very different set of issues from adult prostitution and adult pornography. I place on record my gratitude for the work that they have done. I am disappointed that we cannot change the titles of
58
the offences to emphasise abuse but the Minister's amendments in this group separate out the child offences and will give them their own heading. I beg to move.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, Amendment No. 144 may have a small technical defect. It appears to leave out "in any part of the world". It is important to keep those words in the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support this group of amendments. It seems inappropriate to refer to young children as prostitutes. It has connotations of culpability which are completely inappropriate when we are dealing with children who are being abused. I support the spirit of the amendments even if, technically, they are not quite right. I hope that the Minister will help us out.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I have indicated privately and publicly, I am sympathetic to the concerns which prompted these amendments to make it clear that child prostitution or child pornography would always be abusive to those involved. As the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, rightly said, I think that we are all agreed that we do not want to do it in such a way that it makes it harder to prove the offence.
I believe that there is a way to reflect the House's concern. It can be achieved by changing the italic titles of the relevant sections of the Bill to reflect the view that these offences are concerned with abuse of children. That requires separating out the clauses dealing specifically with child victims from those dealing with prostitution generally.
Currently Clauses 52 to 59 are grouped under an italic heading of "Prostitution and child pornography". Government Amendments Nos. 147 and 152 rearrange the clauses so that Clauses 54 and 56 will now follow the interpretation clause at Clause 58. Government Amendments Nos. 155 and 158 make minor drafting changes to the interpretation of Clause 58 to make clear that it relates specifically to the child-specific offences that now precede it—that is Clauses 52, 53, 55 and 57. Should the House accept those amendments to regroup the clauses in that way, the italic title preceding Clause 52 will be changed to "Abuse of children through prostitution and pornography". That will be included in the print of the Bill prepared for Third Reading. I am advised that the italic title cannot be changed by way of amendment, but the changes that I have just outlined will be made by the Public Bill Office.
Clauses 54 and 56 by virtue of government Amendments Nos. 147 and 152 would then fall after Clause 58. They, along with the new interpretation clause, introduced by government Amendment No. 159 which will follow and explain the now relocated Clauses 54 and 56, form a new group relating to exploitation of prostitution, and the Public Bill Office will introduce a new italic title of "Exploitation of

59
prostitution". I hope that that satisfies a legitimate concern which I fully share, producing a result with which we are all satisfied.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply and I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her support. I apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, if my probing amendment inadvertently removed words. That was not the intention. As it was a probing amendment no harm has been done. I have said that I am grateful for the Minister and his officials taking our concerns seriously. We have a result which moves a considerable way towards meeting those concerns. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 145:
Page 27, line 18, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 145 I shall speak also to the other amendments in the group. I am pleased that the Minister has added his name to eight of the amendments.
All of the amendments delete the requirement to prove gain or expectation of gain as a component of the various offences covered by prostitution, child pornography and trafficking. I shall speak first to those amendments on which we have persuaded the Government of the merits of our arguments. Amendment No. 145 relates to the Clause 53 offence of causing or inciting child prostitution or pornography, Amendment No. 149 relates to the Clause 55 offence of controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography, Amendment No. 154 deals with the Clause 57 offence of arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography, and Amendment No. 156 is consequential. We are delighted that the Government have agreed to delete the requirement for gain for the offences. Proving gain was inappropriate. We are similarly delighted that the Government have agreed with us on Amendments Nos. 160, 161, 162 and 163 which delete the requirement to prove gain from the trafficking offences in Clauses 60 to 63.
That leaves my Amendments Nos. 146 and 151. They seek to remove the need to prove gain from the adult prostitution offences in Clauses 54 and 56. Many of us who spoke at Committee were convinced that the formulation of the offences in Clauses 54 and 56 was wide of the mark. They do not focus on the real ills surrounding prostitution which are not about making money from it but are about the use of force and coercion. I have tabled the amendments as probing amendments so that I have an opportunity to raise again the issue of the review of the law of prostitution that the Government have promised. In Committee the Minister said:
"I am not in a position today to say precisely what the scope of the review will be, but I hope that when we come to the Report stage I shall be able to tell your Lordships".—[Official Report, 13/5/03; col. 187.]
60
The Minister has an audience hanging on his every word. I beg to move.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, before the Minister replies, I want to say how delighted I am that the Government are supporting several of the amendments. I hope that that will lead to more successful prosecutions.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this group of amendments deals with the removal of "gain" from the prostitution, child pornography and trafficking offences. There is also Amendment No. 157, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, amending the scope of "goodwill" within the definition of gain. I cannot talk to that again, so if the noble Lord wishes to speak to the amendment he should do so now or forever hold his peace.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I would have happily waited until later to deal with the matter, but that was merely because I had not spotted that the amendment was in this group. If the Minister is to say something about his promised review of the law on prostitution, then I shall have no comment to make. If the Minister wishes to address the amendment now, because that appears in his briefing notes, I shall be happy. I may be silent when we arrive there.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, indicated, I have put my name to Amendments Nos. 145, 149, 154, 156, 160, 161, 162, and 163, tabled by the noble Baroness and the noble lord, Lord Astor, which deal with the issue of "gain" when referring to the trafficking offences and the offences of child prostitution and pornography, but not to Amendments Nos. 146, 151 and 157 relating to the other prostitution offences.
In Committee I indicated that I would consider removing "gain" from the prostitution and child pornography offences in the Bill. After careful consideration I agree with those noble Lords who raised the matter in earlier debates that when a child has been abused through prostitution or involvement in pornography, the offences should not carry the additional requirement to have been committed for "gain". That is why I am supporting the amendments to which my name has been added.
Looking at the issue of adult prostitution, which is itself not criminal, we do not support Amendments Nos. 146 and 151 which remove the provision for "gain" from the offences at Clauses 54 and 56. Where an adult is "caused" to become a prostitute by another person when that is done exploitatively for the "gain" of that other person, we would want to that to be an offence. Where a person, for example, incites her friend to become a prostitute simply because she thinks her friend could, then that should not be criminal. That is different from child prostitution where we would want a lower threshold for criminality because of the particular vulnerability of the child victims. I would therefore resist Amendments No. 146

61
and 151 if they were moved, but the noble Baroness has indicated that that is not her intention and that her concern is to probe.
The Government are extremely concerned about the Mafia-style criminality associated with the exploitation of girls and women, the links between prostitution and drug dependency and the way in which prostitution can blight local communities. There is much work to be done to establish how best to break the links between the sex trade and organised crime, to help those who are exploited to leave prostitution and to support local communities in developing effective neighbourhood regeneration schemes. In the Bill we go some way to addressing the ways in which the criminal law can be brought to bear to stop commercial sex exploitation and we are making some progress in assessing what works in terms of both enforcement against users and abusers and support for the victims of that trade. It is a complex area and there are few easy answers. We recognise that there should now be a sensible debate on the issue so that we can benefit from the views and practical experience of the agencies and voluntary organisations working with those at risk of, or involved with, prostitution.
However, there remains much groundwork to be done before we will be in a position to announce the timing of such a debate. So I am not in a position to take the matter much further forward than when we were in Committee.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I hope that I am not out of order, but I congratulate the Government on once again striking just the right balance in this difficult matter.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister. As he indicated, I do not intend to move the two amendments with which he does not agree. However, I shall proceed to move formally those with which he does. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 54 [Causing or inciting prostitution for gain]:
[Amendment No. 146 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 147:
Transpose Clause 54 to after Clause 58.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 55 [Controlling a child prostitute or a child involved in pornography]:
[Amendment No. 148 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 149:
Page 28, line 1, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 56 [Controlling prostitution, for gain]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 150:
Page 28, line 14. after "person" insert "directly"
62
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the amendment would insert the word "directly", restricting the offence to someone who intentionally controlled any of the activities of another person directly relating to that person's prostitution.
My intent is to remove from the ambit of the clause, say, the prostitute's travel agent—if she is a successful international prostitute—or, perhaps, her accountant, who is involved in preparing her affairs, or her maid, who keeps the diary by the telephone, or other people who are involved peripherally in what is going on. The Government's objective is to catch people who control prostitution, and I can understand that they wish the clause to be wide enough that they need not prove too much to gain a conviction. However, I want to stop the current practice of some elements in the police, who harass those in any way associated with a prostitute in order to make a prostitute's life difficult and attack people, particularly the prostitute's spouse or lover, who are frequently the target of such prosecutions.
While I am on my feet, I thank the noble and learned Lord for the letter that he wrote and the comfort that he gave as to the abolition of various old prostitution offences. I am grateful for that. I look forward to an open discussion of the law on prostitution. The noble and learned Lord says that the matter is under consideration. Can he give me some comfort that, if I were to ask him a question this time next year, it would then be imminent? Am I being optimistic? I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the present wording covers all the situations in which a person exerts control over the prostitution of another person intentionally and for gain. If the amendment were made, we would have to determine how "directly" or otherwise the activities controlled related to prostitution. That would add to the burden of what must be proven and introduce some uncertainty about the scope of the offence.
We want control of activities that relate to prostitution to be caught. That would include, for example, telling a prostitute which street corner to stand on, telling her what to wear when she works, or controlling her supply of drugs so that she is obliged to sell herself to get the drugs. We know that pimps are engaged in doing all of those things. Including the word "directly" in the offence would throw doubt on whether all those examples would be covered.
The amendment would narrow the scope so that the control of activities that were only indirectly related to the person's prostitution would not be covered. In Committee, the noble Lord raised his concern to ensure that the partners of prostitutes were not caught by the provisions. I suspect—he has made it clear—that that is what Amendment No. 150 seeks to address. However, such individuals will not be caught. If, for example, a partner drives a prostitute to her place of

63
work and collects her from it, that would not be caught, even if the money that she derived from prostitution benefited both of them, unless he directed or otherwise exerted control, so that she was required to be at that place for the purposes of prostitution.
My noble friend's amendment stems from a desire to ensure that people who, for gain, provide services to prostitutes that may assist them in their prostitution—a travel agent, a taxi driver or a hairdresser—are not covered by the offence. That is the other limb of his argument. If a taxi driver or a hairdresser is hired by the prostitute herself for their services, no control is exerted, and they would not be liable for the offence. If a taxi driver, a hairdresser or a travel agent is hired by a pimp to provide their services to a prostitute, it is the pimp who directs the activities relating to prostitution who is exerting the control, not the service provider. If it can be proven that the partner of a prostitute or someone providing a service to her exerts control over activities related to prostitution, it is right that he is liable to be charged in connection with the offence.
I think that, in the answers that I have given, I have dealt with the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. Again, it is a difficult issue, but I think that we have got the balance right in framing the offence. With respect, I resist the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for that answer and particularly grateful to the noble and learned Lord for referring to me as his "noble friend". I shall be kept warm by that flattery for a long time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I apologise for that.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 151 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 152:
Transpose Clause 56 to after Clause 58.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 57 [Arranging or facilitating child prostitution or pornography]:
[Amendment No. 153 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 154:
Page 28, line 26, leave out paragraph (b).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 58 [Sections 53 to 57: interpretation]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 155:
Page 28, line 38, leave out from beginning to "person" in line 39 and insert "For the purposes of sections 53 to 57, a"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 156:
Page 28, line 42, leave out subsection (3).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
The Deputy Speaker (Baroness Lockwood): My Lords, I beg the pardon of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I have to point out that I cannot now call Amendment No. 157, under the rules.
[Amendment No. 157 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 158:
Page 29, line 6, at beginning insert "In those sections"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 159:
After Clause 58, insert the following new clause—
"SECTIONS 54 AND 56: INTERPRETATION
(1) In sections 54 and 56, "gain" means—

(a) any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount; or

(b) the goodwill of any person which is or appears likely, in time, to bring financial advantage.

(2) In those sections "prostitute" and "prostitution" have the meaning given by section 58(4)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 60 [Trafficking into the UK for sexual exploitation]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 160:
Page 29, line 17, leave out from "if' to "he" in line 18.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 61 [Trafficking within the UK for sexual exploitation]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 161:
Page 29, line 33, leave out from "if' to "he" in line 34.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 62 [Trafficking out of the UK for sexual exploitation]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 162:
Page 30, line 6, leave out from "if' to "he" in line 7.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 63 [Sections 60 to 62: interpretation and jurisdiction]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 163:
Page 30, leave out line 35.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 164:
Before Clause 69, insert the following new clause—
"SEXUAL ACTIVITY IN A PUBLIC LAVATORY
(1) A person commits an offence if—

(a) he is in a public lavatory,

(b) he intentionally engages in an activity within subsection (2),

(c) the activity is sexual.

(2) An activity is within this subsection if it involves—

(a) a person, with a part of that person's body or anything else, penetrating that or another person's vagina or anus;

(b) a person, with his penis, penetrating the mouth of another person;

(c) a person touching that person's vagina, anus or penis, other than through that person's clothes; or

(d) a person touching another person's vagina, anus or penis other than through the other person's clothes.

(3) A lavatory is a public lavatory if the public or any section of the public has or is permitted to have access to it whether on payment or otherwise.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

(a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

(b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords. Amendment No. 164 would create an offence of sexual activity in a public lavatory. I shall also speak briefly to Amendment No. 192, which would apply the same offence in Northern Ireland, as we believe that Northern Ireland citizens should have the same protection as those in England and Wales.
Noble Lords will recall that the introductory version of the Bill had Clause 74 creating an offence of sexual activity in public. There was much wrong with that clause, and the Government withdrew it in Committee. Our main concern was that it appeared to encourage sex in a public lavatory, provided that it was behind closed cubicle doors, because it emphasised that a part of the participants in the activity had to be seen. It was our contention that Clause 74 needed to be amended to ensure that sex in a public lavatory was always an offence, whether it was seen or heard. Now that Clause 74 is no longer part of the Bill, we have tabled an amendment to insert a new clause to make it plain that sexual activity in a public lavatory is an offence.
When the Government launched the White Paper entitled Protecting the Public last November, the Minister, repeating the Statement of the Home Secretary in another place, said:
"Our proposals for reform … will better protect the public, particularly children and the vulnerable".—[Official Report, 19/11/02; col. 286.]
He went on to say, at col. 288, that,
"we will introduce a new offence to deal with specific sex acts in a public place. This will reinforce a sense of decency and respect for others".
We agreed with that and had high hopes of the Bill. Those hopes have not been fulfilled.
Before this Bill, there were three main ways in which sex in a public lavatory might have resulted in a criminal prosecution; namely, the common law offence of outraging public decency, Section 5 of the Public Order Act, and the male-only offence of gross indecency, under the Sexual Offences Act. This Bill repeals the gross indecency offence because it is not gender neutral—we have no quarrel with that. But in doing so it has taken away the offence which was used very considerably to deal with sex in lavatories—that
66
offence specifically referred to lavatories. It has failed to replace it with anything else. The result is not the better protection promised by the Government, but worse protection. That is why we want a specific offence in this Bill to strengthen protection for the public.
In my opinion, the common law offence of outraging public decency is not sufficiently clear and robust on the issue of sex in public lavatories to be relied on. It requires the prosecution to prove that an act is of such a lewd, obscene or disgusting character as to outrage public decency. First, let us assume—no mean assumption—that this is always easy to prove in the case of sex in a public lavatory. Secondly, the prosecution must prove that the act was capable of being seen. That was the view of Mr Justice Ashworth who gave the judgment of the Appeal Court in the case of Mayling in 1996. He said:
"It is, in the view of this Court, clear that more than one person must at least have been able to see the act complained of if the charge is to be made out".
As I understand it, there is no case law involving acts which have been experienced or heard but not seen. The Home Office review entitled Setting the Boundaries, which recommended a specific offence of sex in public, said in relation to the offence of outraging public decency that its
"very width and flexibility make it an uncertain offence without the clarity required of modern law".
I turn now to the offences of harassment, alarm or distress under Sections 4A and 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. First, these offences are rarely used at present and so we cannot expect much protection from them in future. Secondly, the maximum penalty is a level 3 fine. The offence that I have drafted. into Amendment No. 164 has a more realistic penalty of a maximum of two years' imprisonment on indictment or six months or the statutory maximum fine in summary proceedings. Incidentally, this penalty aligns with those for the new offences of exposure and voyeurism created by the Bill.
My case is that sexual activity in public lavatories should never, ever be permitted. I believe that the vast majority of people agree with that. Too often, public lavatories have become no-go areas. Parents are afraid to send their children unaccompanied into them, which is a particular problem for mothers with sons. Many public lavatories have had to be closed. The time has come to ensure that the public obtain the protection that they deserve and which the Government promised.
This Bill has weakened the law relating to sex in public lavatories. My modest amendment seeks to state clearly and unambiguously what is not permitted in public lavatories. I hope that the Government will not persist with their policy of less protection for the public and will support my amendment so that a clear signal is sent about what public lavatories are for and what they are not for. I beg to move.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I support my noble friend and I have added my name to her amendment. I speak also to Amendment No. 192 standing in my name, to which my noble friend has added her support. There is a serious lacuna in this Bill relating to dealing with sex in public toilets. There is, and has been for decades, a known problem of men using public toilets to meet other men for anonymous sexual encounters. That causes nuisance, annoyance and upset to very many people. Some complain about walking into public toilets and finding sexual activity already taking place. Others witness men in the street soliciting one another who then disappear into the toilets for sex. Some people live near public lavatories commonly used in this way and have the nuisance of men and cars coming and going at all hours of the day and night. There are also cases of children going into public toilets and being unwilling witnesses to sexual activity inside.
When Parliament legalised homosexual acts in private in 1967, it recognised this problem and created a specific statutory offence to deal with it. The legalisation of homosexual activity appears to have done little in 35 years to lessen the propensity of some homosexual men to use public toilets for sexual encounters. It is known as "cottaging". The fact that the activity even has a recognised slang name is indicative of the scale of the problem. Some homosexual charities even send so-called "outreach workers" to stand outside known cottaging grounds to hand out condoms to the homosexual men who come there for sex.
Sex in public toilets is a blight on many communities. That has certainly been confirmed by the hundreds of letters we have received on this issue. When I spoke in Committee, I listed a selection of cases in which the police had been having to clamp down on homosexual activity in public toilets around the country. As my noble friend said, the law that the police rely on when clamping down on such activities is gross indecency. Gross indecency is a clear, statutory offence which outlaws sexual activity if it takes place in a public toilet. It simply requires proof that the activity took place. It is a law that works.
It is not being repealed in this Bill because it is ineffective; it is being repealed because the Government regard it as discriminatory as it applies only to homosexual acts. The solution is simple—extend gross indecency to all sexual acts. To borrow the phase used by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, on 19th May, at col. 583, this would be "sexuality neutral". Instead, gross indecency is being repealed and nothing is being put in its place.
Amendment No. 164, tabled by my noble friend and to which I have added my name, creates a straightforward criminal offence which addresses this problem. It cannot be said to attract any of the criticism that was directed at the Government's Clause 74 in the introductory print of the Bill because it covers only sexual activity in public toilets. It does not cover
68
sexual activity in people's back gardens or on mountainsides or anywhere else. It deals with the problem of public lavatories only.
This issue of sex in public lavatories is a concern to Members on all Benches in your Lordships' House. Public lavatories should be clean and safe, especially for children and their families. They should be free from seedy and, frankly, disgusting practices. My concern is that the very way in which the police can take action against such practices is being repealed and, as I said, nothing is being put in its place.
Last time, the Minister said:
"Our aim has always been to ensure that the law provides sufficient protection from such behaviour, which everyone in this House feels should take place in private",—[Official Report, 19/5/03; col. 585.]
That means, not in a public lavatory.
As the Bill stands, the Government will not achieve that aim. As everyone has agreed that the problem needs to be dealt with and since there is a much-used criminal offence on the statute book which is being removed by this Bill, why is the Minister not prepared to put something in its place to ensure that all the same ground is covered along with heterosexual and lesbian and gay activity?
If there is any shadow of doubt whether sexual activity in public toilets will be criminal after this Bill is passed, the Bill must be amended to remove that doubt. And there is doubt, because the Minister tells us that we should have to fall back on the existing common law offence of outraging public decency or on Section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986.
I ask the Minister: which one? Which of these offences will apply to the men caught engaging in sexual activity in a toilet cubicle? Is that outraging public decency or is it behaviour likely to cause harassment, alarm or distress? If the Minister cannot say with certainty, he is betraying that there is doubt about the scope of those offences, which of them the police would use and the view taken by the court.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the common law offence of outraging public decency as focusing on the broad nature of the behaviour and the impact that it causes—rather than on the technicalities. It is precisely the general nature of the offences that creates the risk that they will fail to catch the kind of behaviour about which we are all concerned.
Case law on outraging public decency suggests that the offence is only committed where two or more members of the public can witness the activity. The Minister previously referred to Smith and Hogan—the leading criminal law text book—saying that it suggested that CCTV could provide the necessary evidence for a public decency offence conviction. Is he seriously suggesting that every toilet cubicle in the country should be fitted with a CCTV camera, peering down into it? I hardly think that the public would stand for that. If they did, CCTV evidence of what was going on in the cubicle would not be enough to make out the offence. Observing the offence via a camera is not enough. The offence must occur in public and at least two people must see it with their own eyes.

69
The 10th edition of Smith and Hogan, at page 490, simply states that a CCTV camera may provide evidence that the act took place where it could be seen by two or more people. If the camera simply shows that the act took place in a cubicle where it could not be seen by anyone but the participants, that would not be enough. In fact, CCTV coverage could be used by the defence. Sex in public toilets could continue without committing an offence under the only remaining legal remedy—common law on outraging public decency or Section 5 of the Public Order Act l986.
A witness may see two men go into the cubicle and hear them engaging in sexual activity—but since he cannot see it, the offence of outraging public decency would not apply. My noble friend's amendment is the solution. It is clear. It is unambiguous. It does not require that the activity be seen any more than the offence of gross indecency. The Minister said that it is difficult to know from hearing noises which act is taking place, yet that is true of gross indecency—an offence that works perfectly well.
It may be perfectly clear to witnesses that one or more of the activities listed in the proposed subsection (2) is taking place without needing to see it. It is certainly easier to prove an offence under the amendment than that the act crosses the threshold of outraging public decency and could be witnessed by two or more members of the public.
The suggested offence would be easier to prove than the public order offence of causing harassment, alarm or distress—originally intended to deal with minor acts of hooliganism, not sexual offences. The definition of what causes harassment, alarm or distress is vague and variable—whereas the list of prohibited activities in Amendment No. 164 is clear and fixed, and my noble friend's amendment has the benefit of being non-discriminatory. It does not focus on homosexuality, which is a major concern of this Government. It does not criminalise any behaviour that your Lordships may seek to defend. It only criminalises behaviour that we all agree ought to be criminalised. Why cannot we have certainly and reassurance for the public, by having a clear offence in statute? Not to accept the amendment is to accept that sex in public lavatories will continue with much less protection for decent, law-abiding communities than at present.
Amendment No. 192 applies to Northern Ireland my noble friend's proposed offence of sexual activity in a public lavatory. Until two o'clock on 20th May, Northern Ireland did not have to worry about that matter. In the draft Bill, gross indecency remained on Northern Ireland's statute book. Until then, it was government policy to leave the law on sexual offences in Northern Ireland largely untouched.
On 19th May, the noble and learned Lord restated the Government's position that,
"a fundamental reform of the law on sex offences in Northern Ireland does not form part of this Bill".—[Official Report, 19/5/03; col. 678.]
70
The Government decided, without any consultation, to amend Northern Ireland's laws on sex offences in one of the most controversial ways possible, by amending Schedule 5 to repeal the offence of gross indecency—which provides real protection against a known public nuisance. Repealing that offence while putting nothing in its place is irresponsible and careless. To do so in Northern Ireland, where the consultation on sexual offences has not even been published, is downright arrogant.
Some people suspect that the Government may be taking advantage of the suspension of the Northern Ireland Assembly to sneak through this controversial reform. Certainly the God-fearing people of Northern Ireland are unlikely to be pleased with the change. Nor will the police—judging from a conversation with a serving officer in the Province. One officer advised me that the offence of outraging public decency is simply not used for such behaviour. He has consulted with others in the police service and their view is that Northern Ireland, as with England and Wales, would be moving into uncharted waters. No one knows what views the courts would take once the offence of gross indecency has been moved.
The officer repeatedly stated that it is an unknown quantity. He and his colleagues did not regard that as satisfactory. They are concerned that the common law offence will be regarded as too archaic properly to address the problem. In particular, they feel that it will be persuade a court that the activity has passed the test of causing outrage. The police want new legislation that they can be confident will enable them to take action. My noble friend's amendment would do just that, which is my reason for seeking to apply it to Northern Ireland also.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly—wearing my hat as Opposition Front Bench spokesman on Northern Ireland affairs—in support of my noble friend's amendment. I am intervening purely and simply because of the number of letters that I have received on the subject from across the Province. There is no sign that those letters were organised. They have come from north, west, south and east of the Province. They have come handwritten on little pieces of paper, formally typed and informally typed. This issue has produced the largest postbag from people in Northern Ireland since I became Northern Ireland spokesman in your Lordships' House.
It is quite wrong to leave the law so exposed. The key points made by my correspondents concern safety for children and sneaking through this sort of legislative change in the Province while it does not have a Assembly in which the issue can be raised. I support Amendment No. 192.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I warmly support my noble friend's amendment and the remarks of my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Glentoran—although I shall confine myself to the position in England and Wales. Even the present law on sexual behaviour in

71
public lavatories is inadequate. The repeal of the offence of gross indecency will make the position even worse. In fact, it will make it terrible.
The Government, by legalising sex in public lavatories, are creating the most appalling possibilities. It is said that photographic apparatus will be used to record anything that goes wrong. I cannot believe that every public lavatory in the country would have such an apparatus—or that if it did, it would necessarily cure the matter.
One of the things we have to worry about most under the present law, but even worse, under the repeal of the law relating to gross indecency, is the effect on young people, including small children. The amendment tabled by my noble friend Lady Noakes provides a solution. People could argue on some of the detail and may think that they could suggest a stronger and better solution, but I doubt it. The amendment is well phrased. I hope that the Minister will keep an open mind on the matter and not merely put forward the decisions the Government already seem to have wrongly taken.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I raise a short point of construction. Of course I agree with the amendment's principle; it is wholly correct. But I am a little worried and seek clarification. Subsections (2)(c) and (d) have the qualification,
"other than through that person's clothes".
Subsection (1)(b) specifies that the touching must be intentional, and subsection (1)(c) that "the activity is sexual". Does that mean that if it is done through another person's clothes, no offence is committed? It seems a clumsy way of going about a prohibition. I raise the point only because the qualification does not ride totally with the fundamental spirit of the amendment, with which I am wholly in agreement.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, like other Members of your Lordships' House I have received a number of letters in support of the amendment. One or two have even come to me from Northern Ireland. The English ones came from doctors, parents and general members of the public. I urge the Government either to accept the amendment or to produce their own improvement on it.
Lord Fitt: My Lords, I support the amendment and reinforce the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran. In this House your Lordships will recognise that I have restricted myself largely to events as they unfurl in Northern Ireland, particularly in the political arena. But taking into consideration all the political developments that have taken place over the past 30 years, I have rarely seen such an avalanche of anger as I have seen from Northern Ireland in relation to the Bill. It was not one or two letters or telephone calls, but the mass of people in Northern Ireland—Catholic, Protestant, Unionist and nationalists. They cannot believe their eyes or ears when they take into account what the Government are going to permit in Northern Ireland.
72
I rise to warn the Government, and here I will be attacked by some people. If the amendment is not carried and sexual activity is permitted in toilets, even though it be in the cubicle with the door closed, one can see the feet under it and one will be totally aware of what is going on. I can see fathers going into those toilets with their sons and being so disgusted about what their young son is going to see that it will give rise to an outbreak of homophobia. Some fathers will feel as I would feel were I 20 years younger and saw such activity in a public toilet; like taking physical action against those involved. If that happens, the Government will have no one to blame but themselves. Public toilets are public. They are meant for a certain usage. They were never meant under any distinction for the activity we are discussing today.
I feel embarrassed that the noble Baronesses had to put down in such graphic detail the wording of Amendment No. 164. They must have found it distasteful to have to put such words into their amendment. But I know that they are motivated by trying to prevent an awful evil from being committed and appearing to be sanctioned by the Government. I can only reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said. He spoke for the majority of people in Northern Ireland, as I do standing on my feet at this moment. This permission for sexual activity in public toilets is anathema to all right-thinking people, not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, we on these Benches share the antipathy expressed to sexual acts in public toilets. We too believe that public toilets should be used for the purposes for which they were built, as the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, said. However, we think that the best way of dealing with the matter is that such toilets should be clean, safe and supervised and that the sanction of the criminal law should be applied in a proper way. Therefore we agree with the Government that the best way of dealing with the matter is by using the common law offence of outraging public decency.
The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said that the common law was archaic. In fact it is flexible. A reliance has been placed on a case named Mayling, which was decided in the court of criminal appeal in 1963 with the judgment given by Mr Justice Ashworth. It is of some authority, but not of the highest authority. Mr Justice Ashworth decided to translate the words of the indictment in this way:
"the prosecution has to prove, first, that the act complained of was committed 'within the purview of … divers of Her Majesty's subjects".
He construed that as being "in the sight of". That is where we get the idea that there is no criminal offence unless what happens takes place in the sight of a particular witness.
But purview does not simply mean in the sight of. It also means in the experience, the contemplation or consideration of a person who happens to witness what is going on. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt, that that would cover a person hearing something in a public lavatory. It does not have to be within his sight.

73
The offence of outraging public decency is very old and wide. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, in a case decided in the committee of the House of Lords in 1972, set out what it covers: indecent exposure, acts of sexual indecency in public, indecent words—and, rather more archaicly—disinterring a corpse, exhibiting deformed children, exhibiting a picture of sores and procuring a girl to be taken for prostitution. The noble and learned Lord said that they have a common element in that, in each, offence against public decency was alleged to be an ingredient of the crime, except Grey where it was said to be "disgusting and offensive":
"so disgusting that it is calculated to turn the stomach".
Conduct that outrages public decency is therefore widely defined. The noble and learned Lord said later in his speech that he did not think it would necessarily negative the offence that the act or exhibit was superficially hid from view. Later he said that moreover the offence was, in his view, concerned with recognised minimum standards of decency, which are likely to vary from time to time.
The Government have taken the right course not to prescribe in complete detail—as the amendment seeks to do—the conduct to be criminalised. The fact that it now becomes an offence which is triable in the magistrates' court will mean more prosecutions on this basis. A wide and flexible definition is much more likely to attain the result that most noble Lords and their correspondents are hoping for than the proposed amendment.
6.30 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I agree with much of what the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said. I wish to make one or two points. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for the tone of the debate. I welcome the way in which she has conducted and constructed it.
Let me say one or two words about the history of sex in public lavatories as it pertains to gay men. We are in a transitional period and the practice is dying out. If the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, wishes to intervene, she may do so.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I know that not to be the case. Only very recently some public toilets had to be razed to the ground by the public authority because it could not cope with the public nuisance of people collecting at the public toilets for sex with unknown strangers.
Lord Alli: My Lords, it is that myth that I wish to challenge and to ask for a little understanding. A study of the history of homosexuality in this country shows that for much of the past century homosexuality was illegal and homosexuals were driven underground. That process forced them to meet in places where the practice is deemed now to be unacceptable.
I am not defending sex in public lavatories—I do not believe I can. I agree with much of what has been said: public lavatories are designed for a specific purpose,
74
not for having sex in. I do not disagree with that. But for generations—not my generation, the generation before me—homosexuals did not have the meeting places that my generation, the younger generation, now have. They did not have a much more open society, where they could meet people at dinner parties or at work and where the tolerance level is much greater. It is this which will change the practice more than anything else. It is a practice which is well on the decline.
My second point is simply this: I have an inherent objection to locking people up for having consensual sex. I do not feel comfortable with it. Whether the people involved are heterosexual or gay, whether they are having sex in a car, whether they are young people coming back from a party at Christmas time and using the works' lavatory or a public lavatory, locking up two young people and sending them to prison for having consensual sex seems the wrong method. Those are the two points that I wanted to make.
Lord Molyneaux of Killead: My Lords, I fully support both amendments, particularly the one providing for the application to Northern Ireland. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Fitt. The representations made to him are common to all noble Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Glentoran, said, and they have all homed in on one specific problem. It is clear from our correspondents that, whether or not they regard the common law as suitable for the debate, what is required here is something more specific, such as the amendments. I warmly support both amendments.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, I did not intend to intervene. I apologise to the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for not being in the Chamber when she moved the amendment. I had popped out to get my notes, which I still cannot find. I decided not to say anything because I could not say it in a constructive way but, having listened to the debate, I cannot in all conscience sit here and support the Government. I intend to support the amendment if it is moved.
The noble Lord on the Cross Benches suggested an alternative. I believe that most people in this country would fail to understand why the House of Lords would reject an amendment which is clearly designed for the protection of decency and people's feelings. I am not a lawyer—I thank God that I am not a lawyer—and I cannot speak with the eloquence of some of the lawyers in the Chamber, but I can speak for ordinary folk. They will find it very difficult to understand why the amendment, if it is moved, is resisted by the Government.
There is plenty of time for the Government to put in the safeguards contained in the amendment and to bring back the matter at a later stage. It is as simple as that. As it stands, if the amendment is not accepted by the Government I shall have no alternative but to oppose them in the Lobbies.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, perhaps I may draw attention to the curious situation which arises under the present law as enunciated by the noble Lord who

75
spoke from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. Under the law as it stands, it would seem that for two persons or more to have sex in a public lavatory would not be an offence until the moment that someone else entered that public lavatory. They would be performing a perfectly legal act until that moment. Is this a sensible and logical way in which the law should be constructed?
Another aspect should be borne in mind. Not all public lavatories are terribly large. If a group of persons should go together to such a site and among them there were those who engaged in sex, no offence would be committed because none of them would be outraged.
There is an ultimate absurdity. If there are only two people and no one else is there—no offence; one person entering—offence created; a whole mass of people there, all for the same purpose—no offence created. Surely the noble and learned Lord on the Government Front Bench is not going to defend such a situation when there is a perfectly obvious, simple and straightforward amendment before the House which will get him out of that hole.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, there is not much dispute about the fact that public toilets should be used for the purpose for which they are built. There is equally not much dispute that people do not want public toilets used in a way that upsets, outrages, offends and distresses people of a reasonable disposition. There is no dispute about that. The question is how to achieve it.
We take the view, for the reasons broadly advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, that the common law, subject to one amendment, is capable of dealing with the problem. It is flexible and it is based on the propositions advanced in the House that the conduct causes offence, upset, harassment and outrages public decency. That is the problem in relation to the law.
The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, said that surely someone has to see what happens. If no one is there, there is no offence. That is not right. If a reasonable man were there—even though he is not—and could see it, that is sufficient. The noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is shaking his head. Perhaps he will tell me where I am wrong.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord is missing the point. The proposition that I advanced was that for those concerned in committing the act, it is a perfectly lawful act today provided that no one else comes into the public lavatory. The moment someone else comes in, it becomes unlawful. Surely that is not sensible.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it would not be sensible if that were the proposition I am advancing. However, the proposition I am advancing is that if such an act occurs, it is not a question of whether someone is there at the same time but whether the act
76
is capable of being seen if someone were there. That is what we are proposing and it is a perfectly sensible way of dealing with the issue.
What is the alternative being suggested? The amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, specifies that certain activities have to be committed. I shall not read them to the House because they are printed on the Marshalled List in Amendment No. 164 and are fairly precise. In the law as we see it operating, if something were to happen behind a cubicle door, for example, it would not be necessary to identify precisely what act had occurred, it would be enough, if looking at all the circumstances, people using the toilet were outraged, offended or distressed by what happened.
As regards the noble Baroness's amendment, particular, specific acts have to be identified. I fully understand the motive behind the amendment, but I can assure noble Lords that it is not going to have the effect which the noble Baroness hopes because of the specific problems of proof. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, we do not want to put CCTV in every cubicle, which is the effect of the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
We are united in what we wish to achieve: using the law based on outraging public decency or offending or distressing people who visit public lavatories is the appropriate way to deal with it. It is effective. We thought about the clause proposed by the noble Baroness but came to the conclusion that it would not work for the reasons I have indicated.
I hope that noble Lords will reflect on what I am saying. I do not believe that there is any dispute about the aim which we wish to achieve.
Lord Glentoran: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord explain how he sees sufficient deterrent to make it safe for children to use public lavatories? A major thrust in the mail I have received is that parents are frightened that there will not be sufficient deterrent for them to feel comfortable that their children can go into public lavatories.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am making it an enforceable crime rather than one which raises difficulties of proof which the proposal of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, provides. We are proposing something that is workable and can be proved. I earnestly suggest that noble Lords look at what is proposed and deal with the issue of how it is dealt with behind a cubicle door.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord agree that if this amendment were accepted it would be necessary in each case for the prosecution to prove either A, B, C or D, and that that would produce a much more difficult burden of proof

77
on the prosecution than to prove outraging public decency, which is directed to the outrage which people feel, not the specific act which has been carried out?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, that is obviously right and I understand that that is what the noble Baroness wishes. She wants the law to be that even though the offence takes place behind closed doors in a public lavatory where proof is difficult, one of the specific acts needs to be proved. If and in so far as the noble Baroness is seeking to suggest to the House that that would make it easier to get convictions, she is not right.
We share the same aim. I believe that we achieve that better than the noble Baroness's amendments. As regards the position in Northern Ireland in relation to Amendment No. 192, Article 19 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, which will be enacted in July, makes it an offence for a man to commit buggery with another person unless it is in a private place. Paragraph (4)(b) states that a public lavatory is not a private place.
As we have made clear throughout the course of this Bill, while we are dealing with certain aspects of the law in Northern Ireland, there is a much wider review going on there which will embrace a number of these issues. I hope that noble Lords will be reassured by what I say on that matter.
I conclude by saying that we all share the same ends. We are trying to be effective in what we are doing, but I am not so sure that what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, is suggesting is that effective.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, why was it that the offence of gross indecency, which worked and covered these acts, was repealed? If the only problem was that it discriminated against homosexuals, the offence could have been extended to cover all sexual acts in public toilets.
Lord Renton: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord replies, I point out that the present law is inadequate. The repeal of the offence of gross indecency makes it even more inadequate. The Government are simply trying to preserve the present position, which will not do.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, says that the present law is adequate, but the noble Lord, Lord Renton, says that it is not. Subject to the amendment which we are making, which is to make outraging public decency an offence triable summarily, we believe that there is adequate and effective protection.
Lord Monson: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord claims that the Government's proposals will be effective. Is he aware that in 2001, for example, the conviction rate in prosecutions for outraging public decency was a mere 20 per cent?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was aware of that, but I do not think that that conviction rate indicates whether or not the current law will be effective.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. They have made some extremely valuable points, which I do not have time to go through. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway raised the issue of clothes. I borrowed the drafting from the introductory draft of the Sexual Offences Bill. The explanation is given in the Explanatory Notes. A might scratch himself through his clothes or his knee might touch another's person or crotch. That is not caught within the terms of the offence.
The issue is clear for me. The Bill weakens the protection of the law against sexual activity in public lavatories. The gross indecency offence has gone and instead we are invited to rely on the common law offence, which is hardly used. We heard a moment ago from the noble Lord, Lord Monson, about the conviction rate, but the number of cases brought is extremely low. It is only a couple of hundred in total, only about 30 of which resulted in conviction.
We are invited to rely on this offence, which has hardly been used for dealing with sex in public lavatories in recent years. It covers a wide range of things and the statistics relate to all of the matters covered, not just sex in public lavatories because in recent years we have been using the offence of gross indecency. I do not want to reinstate that offence because I believe that it is offensive to homosexuals. That is why I drafted my amendment in entirely gender-neutral terms.
I say to those who are concerned about how the existing common law offence has been used that that offence evolved in an era not of sexual neutrality, a concept introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in Committee, but during the period that he referred to in his interesting survey of the background to homosexual behaviour when it was strongly disapproved of by society. That is the background as to how that offence has evolved.
In effect the Minister has said the offence would cover all activity, whether or not it was heard. The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has said the same. But there is no case in point. In any event, my contention is that it is better to have a certain and clear expression of the law rather than having to rely on interpretation of an archaic offence. Flexible can be synonymous with unclear. The noble and learned Lord has said that it may be difficult to prove the offence I have drafted in my amendment. But it should be capable of being proved and it is worth giving it a try.
I believe that those who support the Bill in its current form will in effect be sending a strong signal to those who seek sexual activity in a public lavatory,

79
especially behind the cubicle door. I hope that no noble Lord would want to send a signal that that sort of activity is acceptable. This issue is so important that I seek the opinion of the House.
6.49 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 164) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 133; Not-Contents, 95.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Hannay of Chiswick, L.

Ahmed, L.

Hanson, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Higgins, L.

Arran, E.

Hodgson of Astley Abbotts, L.

Astor. V.

Home, E.

Astor of Hever, L.

Howe, E.

Baker of Dorking, L.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Bell, L.

Howe of Idlicote, B.

Blackwell, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Blaker, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Blatch, B.

Hylton, L.

Boothroyd, B.

James of Holland Park, B.

Brigstocke, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville, L.

Kimball, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Brookman, L.

Laird, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Burnham, L.

Lucas, L.

Buscombe, B.

Luke, L.

Byford, B.

Lyell, L.

Caithness, E.

McColl of Dulwich, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

Mancroft, L.

Camegy of Lour, B.

Marlesford, L.

Cavendish of Furness, L.

Masham of Ilion, B.

Chadlington, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Chorley, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Colwyn, L.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Cooke of Thomdon, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L. [Teller]

Monson, L.

Crickhowell, L.

Moynihan, L.

Cumberlege, B.

Murton of Lindisfame, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Deedes, L.

Newton of Braintree, L.

Dixon, L.

Noakes, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

Northbrook, L.

Donoughue, L.

Northesk, E.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Onslow, E.

Elton, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Feldman, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Fitt, L.

Peel, E.

Fookes, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Fraser of Carmyllie, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Freeman, L.

Platt of Writtle, B.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Geddes, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Gilmour of Craigrnillar, L.

Pym, L.

Glentoran, L.

Rawlings, B.

Goschen, V.

Reay, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rees, L.

Greenway, L.

Renton, L.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Hanham, B.

Saatchi, L.

80

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Seccombe, B. [Teller]

Tebbit, L.

Selborne, E.

Vivian, L.

Sharpies, B.

Vivian, L.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Waddington, L.

Sheldon, L.

Wakeham, L.Walker of Doncaster, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Walker of Worcester, L.

Stallard, L.

Weatherill, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Windlesham, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Alli, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Andrews, B.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

Berkeley, L.

Billingham, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Blackstone, B.

Jones, L.

Bragg, L.

Jordan, L.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Layard, L.

Burlison, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Lipsey, L.

Carter, L.

Listowel, E.

Chandos, V.

Lockwood, B.

Christopher, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

[Teller]

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Crawley, B.

Morgan, L.

Darcy de Knayth, B.

Newby, L.

David B

Parekh, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Desai, L..

Plant of Highfield, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Radice. L

Razzall, L.

Dubs, L.

Rea, L.

Elder, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Elis-Thomas, L.

Richard, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Rogers of Riverside. L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Stern, B.

Filkin, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Gale, B.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

Golding, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Goudie, B.

Tomlinson, L.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Hamwee, B.

Watson of Invergowrie, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Harrison, L.

Whitaker, B.

Haskel, L.

Whiny, L.

Hattersley, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Hayman, B.

Williams of Elvel, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
7 p.m.
Clause 72 [Intercourse with an animal]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 166:
Page 34, line 19, leave out "a living" and insert "an"

81
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 166,I shall also speak to Amendment No. 166A.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and I discussed this matter in Committee, he said that it was a matter of deciding where the line should be drawn. Yes, that probably is the question, and I think the line should be drawn in a rather different place from where the Government have chosen to draw it. I am sorry to have to trespass on the noble and learned Lord's sensitivities—he was extremely successful in avoiding indelicate language in the course of the debate on the last amendment. I suspect this amendment may prove more difficult.
I think we are all agreed that none of us wishes to decriminalise the existing offences with animals. That is, as I understand it, the way in which the noble and learned Lord has drafted the clause in this part of the Bill. It seems to me, however, that we ought, when having what I suspect will be a very rare opportunity to consider this particular offence, to think about where we should properly draw its boundaries. Amendment No. 166A addresses what is a fairly common and well-attested variety of sexual activity with animals, and that is fetching. I do not know how far the classical education of the noble Lord goes—certainly when researching this particular offence I began to understand why classics is a popular subject at university—but he will perhaps be aware that Messalina won a competition with a prostitute for suffocating stoats. She won with 25 stoats in 24 hours. I do not believe that anyone takes it to quite that extent now, but certainly the use of gerbils appears to be popular, and snakes and other animals. As I understand it. it is both a male and female practice.
It seems to me that if we are going to outlaw what one might call conventional penetration of a. human by an animal, that is, of using a large animal's penis to do the penetration, one should similarly outlaw the use of a whole smaller animal to undertake the penetration. I do not see the difference in the quality of the offence. If one is outrageous to public decency in the public imagination, then it seems that the other one should be too.
Amendment No. 166 addresses the question of sex with a dead animal. Again, I do not see the quantitative difference between one and the other, particularly when you have well-known sexual practices on the borderline such as avisodomy, which is the practice of breaking a hen's neck at the moment before penetration so that you benefit from the spasms that the animal undergoes afterwards. That, as the Government have drafted the Bill, would seem to be legal, since the animal is certainly clinically dead once its neck has been broken, even if it continues to move.
If we are to have this as an offence, it might at least have logical boundaries. That is, if one is interfering with an animal in a way which would be considered full-on sex, as it were, then that is not to be allowed. As I understand it, neither the noble Lord nor I are proposing that masturbating an animal should be an offence, or using an animal in the process of
82
masturbation. It is the only example of bestiality that I have ever personally observed, and I cannot say that it was a pleasant sight.
Leaving that aside, we ought to have boundaries which are drawn in a reasonably logical place and which reflect the current practice of bestiality, rather than something which perhaps has been drawn from a civil service cushioned from coming across these matters on a day-to-day basis. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I cannot match the quality of the research done by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on this matter but I have always thought that the present maximum penalty of life imprisonment for this offence to be utterly ridiculous and disproportionate. I said as much when we were debating another de facto sexual offences Bill some years ago. Equally, it would be going a little too far to decriminalise it altogether. Once again, as so often in this Bill, I think that the Government have struck about the right balance.
The judges are of a like mind to myself, in that, in the relatively rare cases when prosecutions are brought and convictions obtained, the average custodial sentence is about nine months. Quite often, non-custodial sentences are imposed. If the Government's two-year maximum is accepted, I would guess that this will be brought down somewhat and that most convictions will result in non-custodial sentences. That, except in cases involving actual cruelty—which by definition obviously must occur occasionally—I think is right.
I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is aiming at in the second amendment but I have not been able to give much thought to it. However, as to the clause as a whole, I think that the Government have broadly got it about right.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the sex offences review heard evidence that sexual activity with living animals was a matter that needed to be addressed by the criminal law. We have no reason to believe that other types of sexual activity with animals, about which the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, treated us to a long—I do not complain about it being long—wellresearched exposition, is anything other than extremely rare. I am not persuaded, therefore, that there is a need to extend the offence in the way suggested.
It is also important to remember that there is a longstanding provision in the Protection of Animals Act 1911 which makes certain cruel behaviour towards or neglect of an animal an offence.
The provisions in the Sexual Offences Bill are therefore not the only means of providing protection for animals in law. I think that, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said, we have the balance about right. We are not minded to increase the scope of the Bill and for that reason we must resist the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords., it is quite clear that I am not going to carry the House with me in a wave of approbation for these amendments. I therefore beg leave to withdraw the amendment.

83
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 166A not moved.]
Clause 73 [Sexual Penetration of a Corpse]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 167:
Leave out Clause 73.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has just said that he was not inclined to accept my amendments on felching because he had very little evidence that this was a current practice. Here we have the Government proposing to make a new offence of something for which the Government have absolutely no evidence that it existed before. That is what the noble Lord said in Committee. He could produce no instance where this offence, or what is to be an offence, had been proved. There was no public evidence of it taking place at all, let alone of it being common.
We are therefore creating an offence for a crime which, as far as the Government know, does not exist. I consider that an extraordinary thing to do and that is my principal reason—other than the fact that the noble and learned Lord is not listening—for wishing to move this amendment.
My Lords, we should not start to create crimes for things that do not exist. I entirely accept the noble and learned Lord's strictures that if felching is not common and the Government consider that it is not a current practice, we should not seek to stretch the criminal law to outlaw it. I believe that the Government should take their own medicine with regard to accepting that a particular activity does not exist and consequently not introducing an offence to cover it. We have in front of us in the newspapers an example of outrageous behaviour in relation to a body which has caused real offence, and where there seems to be a problem of producing a crime to fit the behaviour.
The noble and learned Lord will be well aware of the Muslim woman whose body was covered in bacon in Hillingdon. The police have looked very hard to find something with which to charge the perpetrators. They quite clearly—having talked to them—will find it extremely difficult to dream up a charge which will stick or have any great relation to the offence or certainly bear any relation to the seriousness of the outrage felt by the relatives of the person who was subject to the offence. One can imagine other things that one could do to a dead body which would cause great offence. One could paint swastikas on or mutilate a dead body. All of those acts seem to me much more likely and much more current that what is proposed as an offence in the Bill.
I tabled a Written Question to which the noble and learned Lord kindly replied. He said that the Government had absolutely no intention of even investigating, let alone preparing clauses to deal with, other ways in which a body might be treated outrageously and the offence caused by that. All the Government seek to outlaw is the one offence in relation to a body which might actually in some
84
perverted way be an expression of love. That seems to me strange, and in the circumstances of what is going on at the moment, unfortunate. If one considers what one would wish to happen to oneself, I suspect that the one thing that one cares about is reputation. I care not whether my body will be consumed by worms, burnt or dealt with in some other way. What comes after me is my reputation and the way in which people think of me. There is absolutely no proposal to defend that. Indeed, one's reputation is without shield after one's death.
Therefore, from all those points of view, this is an entirely unnecessary and inappropriate clause. I very much hope that the Government will choose to withdraw it. I beg to move.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I am fairly open-minded about the amendment except that I take issue with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, on the frequency of the prospective offence. I cannot believe that it has never happened at all. I would guess that it is very rare: it might even happen only once every two, three or five years but I cannot believe that there have never been cases of it.
However, I should like to take this opportunity to draw attention to a curious paradox. Shortly we shall be invited—or, in practice, told—to approve a European Union directive which will make it illegal for employers to refuse to employ anyone on the grounds of sexual orientation. By definition sexual orientation has a perfectly obvious and clear meaning. The directive will mean that not only will it be illegal for employers to refuse to employ people whose orientation is towards their own sex but also people whose orientation is towards animals, dead bodies or, indeed, children. It is worth reflecting upon that.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, this is the Sexual Offences Bill; it is not a Bill concerned with how one treats dead bodies generally. There must be a limit to what is possible under the Bill. There is currently no law that covers sexual penetration of a dead human body, which is a surprising omission in the criminal law as we believe that such behaviour represents a violation of the respect that ought to be shown to human remains and, when such behaviour comes to light, is profoundly distressing for the family of the dead person.
While existing legislation covers exhuming a dead body without lawful authority there is no other protection for the body of a person once he or she is dead. Setting the Boundaries heard anecdotal evidence that sexual penetration of dead bodies took place, albeit in rare and unusual circumstances. It is impossible to quantify the extent of the behaviour but that is not surprising when the law is silent on the issue. There is, however, no indication that it is anything other than extremely rare. Having said that, I do not agree that the offence should be struck from the Bill. I am sure that it will be agreed that sexually to penetrate the corpse of another person is profoundly abhorrent, that it is not only incredibly disrespectful to the

85
deceased but that it could also be capable of causing the deepest possible distress to the friends and family of the dead person. The current gap in the law needs to be addressed for those probably rare occasions when such behaviour takes place. For those reasons we are minded to keep the clause in the Bill.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, when I asked the noble and learned Lord whether the Government proposed to create additional offences to ensure that the respect that ought to be shown to human remains was not violated, he said that the Government had no plans to introduce any additional offences of that kind. Although the noble and learned Lord argues his case strongly—I find in my heart no way of disagreeing with him as regards the context—he shows no inclination at all to carry that logic over into other ways in which a corpse may be violated and great offence may be caused thereby, although we have in front of us a real case of that and no real evidence—or anything other than anecdotal evidence—that necrophilia takes place in modern Britain. I consider that aspect of the matter extraordinary.
I also consider extraordinary that the noble and learned Lord chooses to create an offence for something which does not exist although he resisted the creation of an offence in my previous amendment on the ground that the relevant offence did not exist. The noble and learned Lord wishes to have it both ways, if that is not an indelicate thing to say in the context of the Bill. I must accept the fact that the Government have that right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 168 to 171 not moved.]
Clause 76 ["Consent"]:
[Amendments Nos. 172 and 173 not moved.]
Clause 77 [Presumptions about the absence of belief in consent]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 174:
Page 36. line 30, at end insert—
"( ) the defendant knew or had reason to believe that he or another person had committed an offence under section 64;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment arises out of discussions we had in Committee and afterwards. An offence under Clause 64, entitled, Administering a substance with intent, appears to me to lack a link to Clause 77. It seems to me that if someone knew that the woman or man in question had been drugged to the extent that it was an offence under Clause 64, or who believed that that had happened, that should be grounds equivalent to the other grounds in the relevant clause why the defendant should then have to prove that he had reasonable grounds for believing that consent had been given. I cannot envisage a circumstance under which one would know that someone had been drugged and one could reasonably be offered the shelter of not coming within Clause 77. It is almost the same as knowing that someone is unconscious because you know that their brain is not connected with the world having been
86
given rohypnol or some equivalent drug. I put the amendment forward as a suggestion but, having suffered grievously on previous amendments, I hold out no great hope of success. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I support my noble friend's amendment. No doubt we shall debate the presumption of belief at a later stage but if we are to have such a presumption it seems to me that this is an entirely sensible one to include and that it provides the logical link to which my noble friend referred.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I agree that it is extremely hard to imagine how a defendant could successfully argue in the circumstances posited in the amendment that he believed in consent. The wording of the amendment as tabled is not in accordance with the way in which the rest of Clause 77 has been framed. However, that is largely a question of technicality. I am concerned that the amendment proposes that it would be sufficient for the prosecution to prove that the defendant had reason to believe. That does not set a high enough standard of proof. The law should depend on whether the defendant knew of the existence of the given circumstances. Those objections aside, there may be some merit in the amendment and I should like to take time to consider it further. I shall return to it at Third Reading.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am immensely cheered. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 175 and 176 not moved.]
Clause 78 [Conclusive presumptions about consent]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 177:
Page 37, line 6, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b) and insert "that, in all the circumstances (including any steps the defendant took to ascertain whether the complainant consented), the defendant could reasonably be expected to have doubted whether the complainant consented.".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have a few words to say about the amendment. It is really a reflection of its sister amendment, which was Amendment No. 6 to Clause 1(3), and of a series of similar amendments to Clauses 3, 5 and 7. As an implementing provision, it is not appropriate.
Clause 78 would alter the burden of proof. As it stands, the burden of proof under the amendment would be very simple. The Crown would have to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused did not take such steps as he could reasonably have been expected to take in all the circumstances of ascertaining whether the complainant consented. With a burden of proof shifted under Clauses 77 and '78, the result would be wholly unacceptable.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway. The Minister

87
tabled an amendment to Clause 1(3) to introduce a partly objective test in cases where the victim does not in truth consent, but the defence of honest belief in consent is raised. The element of objectiveness under the amended test would be whether,
"in all the circumstances (including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents), A could reasonably be expected to doubt whether B consents".
On 2nd June, the sense of the House appeared to be that some element of objectivity was desirable. I respectfully applaud the Government's amendment, which appears an elegant and comprehensive way of dealing with a distasteful subject. It may well be an improvement on the enacted laws of both New Zealand and Canada. However, at present it seems less clear—it has not been specifically debated—whether, assuming that the amendment is agreed to, the complicated provisions of Clauses 77 and 78 would add anything of much value to the legislation. In one view, they may be otiose and productive of more confusion to juries than clarification.
If now is not the occasion to debate the question, I hope that it will be carefully considered by the Minister and, if necessary, reviewed at Third Reading.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I have made a mistake. On the first day of Report, we left the issue by saying that we would come back and discuss the precise formulation of the reasonableness test using shorthand. As part of that, I indicated that I would not move my amendments on reasonableness. I should not have moved Amendment No. 177, because it is part of that sequence of reasonableness amendments. It would add my definition in Clause 1 to Clause 78. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, for drawing attention to my mistake, in effect. That also indicates why we have not yet had the debate to which the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, referred. I apologise and, so that I do not go back on what I said, I cravenly beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 not moved.]
Clause 79 [Sections 77 and 78: relevant acts]:
[Amendment No. 180 not moved.]
Clause 80 ["Sexual"]:
[Amendment No. 180A not moved.]
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 181:
Page 38, line 5, after "sexual" insert "in intent"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 181, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 182. Sadly, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is away this week, so is not in a position to speak to his amendments, but we both share continuing concern about the use of "sexual" in the context of the Bill, particularly on qualifications such as touching being sexual.
88
We are both clear in our opinion that the word is too broad and ill-defined, and will lead to many circumstances in which men in particular—given some court cases that I remember, I am sure that the same will apply to women—when in the ordinary operations of day-to-day life as a teacher, a nurse or anyone else charged with the care of children, are unsure whether "sexual" applies to them. In our litigious society—one that takes extremely seriously sexual crimes towards children, as it should—they might tend to err on the side of caution and of not giving a child the comfort or help that it perhaps deserves or needs in the circumstances, for fear of being accused of a crime under the Bill because of the use of "sexual".
In common parlance, to say that touching is sexual could easily, in the minds of a jury or the public, be broadened to include acts that are not sexual in intent. If a teacher touches a boy on the bottom, or if a male teacher touches a girl on the bottom, one immediately connects that act with "sexual". It is sexual because that is a sexual gesture. It is commonly part of the sexual lexicon of relationships between the two sexes.
The use of the word "sexual" in such contexts in ordinary conversation and in ordinary parlance makes it such a dangerous word to use in this Bill. I at least am concerned that we should not put up further barriers to a proper relationship between a child and a caring adult such as a teacher where we should allow a human interaction—where the interaction between the two should not be bound by a rule book the size of a Dispatch Box. One should be allowed to act naturally and to feel confident in that where there is no element of sexual intent. The effect of my amendments is to make it clear that the "sexual intent" is to be considered, not just "sexual".
Unless the Minister disagrees with me, I would like to know what kind of acts that are not sexual in intent he intends should be caught by the various clauses in the Bill that use the word "sexual". I do not intend to press the matter to a Division today, but I shall consult with the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others to decide what we should do by the end of the Bill. It strikes me as being the one remaining aspect of the Bill where the level of potential damage, albeit unintended, to the way in which teachers and others relate to their charges is not worth any benefit which may arise from making it slightly easier to prosecute people under its various provisions. I beg to move.
The Deputy Speaker (Lord Elton): My Lords, I should draw your Lordships' attention to a misprint in the groupings list. The last amendment in the group should be Amendment No. 182ZA and not Amendment No. 182A as printed.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, dealing with Amendments Nos. 181 and 182, Clause 83, which, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, pointed out, is fundamental to many of the offences in Part 1, has been drafted so that it captures only activity that would generally be thought of as sexual. Our definition requires the jury to use three criteria in its assessment

89
of whether an activity was sexual: the nature of the act itself; the circumstances in which it took place; and the purpose of any person in relation to the act. But the first part of the test rules out any activity that a reasonable person would never consider sexual by reason of its very nature; for example, removing a person's shoes. We do not want to capture activity that no reasonable person would consider to be sexual just because the defendant happened to have a secret fetish not known to the victim.
Only where the jury believes that the activity was possibly sexual—for example, touching a person's leg—will the jury need to go on to look at the defendant's state of mind to see whether that touching was in fact sexual or whether its purpose or other circumstances mean that it was innocent. In some cases, the purpose of the defendant will be pivotal to the decision. But in many other cases—for example, where one person masturbates the other—a reasonable person would be in no doubt simply because of the nature of the act itself that the act was sexual.
In other cases, it will be clear that the activity was sexual from the nature of the act together with the circumstances in which it took place. In those circumstances, it will not be necessary to examine sexual intent to reach that conclusion. However, if we were to introduce Amendment No. 181, that would require the prosecution in every case to prove that either the defendant or someone else involved in the sexual activity had a sexual purpose in relation to the act. As I explained in reply to a similar amendment tabled in Committee, this would add significantly— and we believe unnecessarily—to the evidential burden.
Amending paragraph (a) of Clause 80 to require that a reasonable person would, from the nature of the activity or touching, consider that it may at least be sexual in intent would not be acceptable. What we are looking at here is whether an activity was sexual, not whether it was of sexual intent.
Paragraph (a) is intended to cover not only acts that may or may not be sexual depending on any person's intent, but is also intended to cover acts that are always sexual—in which case one does not need to add the additional element of intent. In such cases, it is not necessary to examine sexual intent.
I believe that the amendment misses the point of the first part of the test, which is to rule out any acts that no reasonable person would from their nature consider may be sexual. Therefore, under the noble Lord's amendment one catches things that one does not want to catch and one imposes an additional hurdle in relation to things to which one does not need to add the intent aspect in order to catch.
Clause 80(b) already includes as one of its criteria the purpose of any person in relation to the act. It follows that this paragraph already covers the question of sexual intent and covers it in such a way as to make clear that sexual intent, along with the nature and circumstances of the activity, can make that activity sexual. I cannot therefore see any need for
90
Amendment No. 182. For the reasons given, I invite the noble Lord to withdraw his amendment and not move the later one.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for his explanation and I shall consider what he has said. However, I believe that there is a fundamental difference and a problem to which the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and I will want to return at Third Reading. It seems that if an act is of' itself sexual because of its nature—for instance, touching someone on the bottom in order to shove a child out of the way of something—it is potentially caught under the Bill. I believe that the jury should not have to consider whether touching a bottom can be sexual, which clearly it can, and then a reasonable person would consider whether it was sexual because of its nature. That would seem to catch touching someone on the bottom.
There is then no need for the purpose or any other circumstance to be discussed in order to satisfy paragraph (b). I would like to see something stronger so that in order to satisfy paragraph (b) there had to be an element of purpose or in another way making it clear that the clause and all those that it serves does not catch anything which an ordinary person would say was innocent because there was no sexual intent. 1 beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave. withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 182 and 182ZA not moved.]
Clause 83 [Persons formerly subject to Part I of the Sex Offenders Act 1997]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 182A:
Page 39, line 41, at end insert—
"( ) section 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c. 37) (sex offender orders and interim orders made in Scotland);"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, as presently drafted, the Bill preserves only the existing sex offender order-making powers (and interim sex offender order-making powers) in England and Wales and Northern Ireland as provided for in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998; namely, Sections 2 and 2A and Article 6 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. It does riot currently maintain the equivalent sex offender order-making powers and interim sex offender order-making powers that courts in Scotland make under Section 20 of the 1998 Act.
Amendment No. 182A will ensure that on commencement of Part 2 of the Bill, offenders previously subject to the notification requirements of the 1997 Act by virtue of being subject to a Scottish sex offender order or an interim sex offender order will continue to be subject to notification but will now be subject to the provisions of this Bill.
As drafted, the Bill excludes a person who is subject to a sexual offences prevention order or interim sexual offences prevention order—as those orders will apply in Scotland—from being the subject of a parental direction.

91
Amendment No. 182B seeks to extend the power of courts in Scotland to make parental directions where sexual offences prevention orders or interim sexual offences prevention orders are being considered by a court. Amendment No. 190E provides a new clause that makes specific provision for the application of sexual offences prevention orders as they will apply in Scotland.
While the process mirrors that in England and Wales, the clause makes clear that unlike the position in England and Wales only the police in Scotland will be able to apply for such an order where they take the view that an offender has committed an offence listed in Schedule 3. It also provides that SOPOs can be granted against an extended category of offender in Scotland pursuant to recommendations 40 and 41 of the expert panel on sex offending—that is, the Cosgrove report—whereby a person is convicted of an offence with a significant sexual aspect. As in England and Wales, the court must be satisfied that the order is necessary for the purposes of protecting the public from serious sexual harm from that person. Otherwise the new clause seeks to make specific reference to Scottish terms such as "chief constable", "sheriff" and "sheriffdom".
Amendment No. 190F ensures that in considering what is a sexual offences prevention order in respect of Scotland, the provisions of the new Clause 103A are to be read along with the principal provisions of Clause 103. Amendments Nos. 190G and 190H remove the Cosgrove type of offender from consideration by a court in England and Wales where a SOPO is being sought. Cosgrove type offenders, as introduced by paragraph 52C of Schedule 3, are dealt with in respect of Scottish applications at Clause 103A. In applications in England and Wales, only offenders listed in that schedule and Schedule 4 are to be considered. That mirrors the different approach in each jurisdiction. Courts here will use paragraph 64 of Schedule 4 when considering an offence in Scotland.
Amendment No. 190J introduces an appeal mechanism for offenders in respect of sexual offences prevention orders as they will apply in Scotland in accordance with normal civil procedure in Scotland. It also makes clear that where an appeal has been taken in Scotland a sexual offences prevention order can continue to have effect pending the outcome of the appeal.
The amendment ensures that the procedure works for Scotland and mirrors as far as possible the sexual offences prevention order appeals provisions that will apply in the rest of the UK as well as following the approach that we have put in place in relation to appeals against notification orders in Scotland.
Amendment No. 190K sets out the modifications required for sexual offences prevention orders as they are to apply to Scotland as set out in Clause 103A. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
92
Clause 91 [Young offenders: parental directions]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 182B:
Page 45, line 33, leave out "(except in Scotland)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 183:
Page 46, line 11, leave out from "police" to end of line 13.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the amendments in this group is to ensure consistency across the clauses in Part 2. Amendments Nos. 183 to 189 add the chief officer of police for the area where the defendant resides to those who can apply for a parental direction under Clause 91 and make the same amendment for the chief constable in Scotland. The amendments bring the police officers who can apply for a parental direction into line with those who can apply for a notification order, a sexual offences prevention order, a foreign travel order and a risk of sexual harm order.
Amendment No. 190 adds the chief constable for the area in which a young offender resides to the police officers who can apply for a parental direction to be varied, renewed or discharged in Scotland. That ensures that the provisions are consistent with those that apply to England, Wales and Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, perhaps I am being entirely dim, but I do not see how Amendment No. 183 achieves that. It removes the requirement that the relevant offender is under 18, which does not appear to have anything to do with the area that a policeman is in or what grade the policeman holds. It removes the requirement that he is in or intends to come into a police area that gives him the extra territoriality so that presumably a police officer in Greater London could take out such an order against someone who was happily living in Glasgow. I cannot match what the noble and learned Lord has said to what Amendment No. 183 says.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I was speaking to Amendments Nos. 183 to 189: the whole group of amendments achieves that. Amendment No. 185 is the relevant one.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, what is the relevance of leaving out the words "is under 18" in line 12 on page 46 as accomplished by Amendment No. 183?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am saying that Amendments Nos. 183 to 189 add the chief officer of police for the area where the defendant resides to those who can apply for parental direction under Clause 91 and makes the same amendment in relation to the chief constable in Scotland. The amendments bring the police officers who can apply for a parental direction—the age aspect—into line with those who can apply for a notification order and so on.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I thought that the noble and learned Lord said that, but I cannot square that with the amendment. The amendment takes out the words "is under 18" in line 12 on page 46. Amendment No. 183 states:
"leave out from 'police' to end of line 13".
Line 12, containing the words "is under 18", goes. I do not see how that action relates to what the Minister has said in describing the amendments.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I can confirm the situation in writing. We are talking about a parental direction where there is an age limit and it is extending the numbers of chief police officers who make the applications. That is what. Amendment No. 185 achieves.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, he can seek that direction for an offender who is 95. Why take out the age limit? I will be happy for the noble and learned Lord to write to me.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 184 t o 189:
Page 46, line 16, leave out first "the" and insert "a relevant".
Page 46, line 16, at end insert"—
( ) who resides in his police area, or who the chief officer believes is in or is intending to come to his police area, and
( ) who the chief officer believes is under 18."
Page 46, line 17, leave out from "constable" to end of line 19.
Page 46, line 21, leave out "that area" and insert "the area of his police force"
Page 46, line 21, leave out "the" and insert "a relevant"
Page 46, line 22, at end insert "—
( ) who resides in that area, or who the chief constable believes is in or is intending to come to that area, and
( ) who the chief constable believes is under 16."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 92 [Parental directions: variations, renewals and discharges]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 190:
Page 46, line 33, after "Scotland" insert"—
( ) the chief constable of the police force within the area of which the young offender resides;
( )"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 98 [Sections 96 and 97: relevant offences]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 190A:
Page 50, line 3, after "3" insert "(other than at paragraph 52C)".
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this group of government amendments represents a commitment given by Scottish Ministers to implement the recommendations made by the Cosgrove committee.
94
Amendment No. 190A is part of a package of interrelated amendments. It will implement the recommendation in the report which sought to broaden the scope of offences to which notification requirements apply. The amendment relates to what is to be considered a relevant offence when a court is considering the making of a notification order in terms of Clauses 96 and 97. Where a court is so doing, the court must be satisfied that the offence committed abroad constituted an offence under the law in force in the country concerned, and that it would have constituted an offence listed in Schedule 3 if it had been done in any part of the United Kingdom. In doing so for Scotland, the court is to disregard paragraph 52C of Schedule 3. As those facts will rarely if ever he so available, Scottish Ministers consider that this is a step too far, and that courts will not be able to form a proper view in this regard on the facts available to them.
Amendments Nos. 194, 195, and 196 will also fulfil the panels' recommendations, by removing the age and sentencing thresholds in Schedule 3 for three specific offences; namely, abduction of a woman or a girl with intent to rape, assault with intent to rape or ravish and indecent assault. Presently the notification requirements are limited to circumstances where any other person involved in the offence—for example, the victim—is under 18 or where the offender was sentenced to at least 30 months' imprisonment. This amendment will broaden the scope of these sexual offences to which the notification requirements apply in Scotland by requiring notification regardless of the age of the victim or the length of sentence imposed.
Amendments Nos. 198B and 201A fulfil a further Cosgrove recommendation—recommendation 42—which recommended that Sections 106 and 107 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 be included in Schedule 1 to the Sex Offenders Act 1997. The 1984 Act will be repealed by the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003, which replaces these provisions with two new offences concerning sexual acts involving a mentally disordered person who has not consented, and sexual relationships between persons providing care services and mentally disordered persons. These amendments add both provisions to the notification requirements of the Sexual Offences Bill, meaning that persons convicted of either offence will be liable to be included on the register of sex offenders.
Amendment No. 201A also adds a new paragraph to the list of automatic trigger offences in Schedule 3 allowing a court in Scotland, where an offender is convicted of any offence which does not carry automatic registration but where the judge considers that the offence discloses a significant sexual aspect in the offender's behaviour in committing the offence, to order registration, subject to a right of appeal against the order by the offender. The provision will sit with the list of offences in Scotland that attract automatic registration in Schedule 3 and will allow judges to determine from the facts of the case whether there was a significant sexual aspect to the case where it is not apparent from the charge.

95
I am not sure whether it is appropriate for me now to deal with the other amendments. I may not get another chance to speak on them. I am resisting them. I beg to move.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 194 to 202. Amendments Nos. 194 to 201 deal with offences in Scotland that would trigger the requirement to notify on the sex offenders register. Amendment No. 202 would insert a detailed list of offences for Scotland into Schedule 4, which allows for sexual offences prevention orders to be made. Those points have been aired in Committee.
I was heartened that the Minister added his name to Amendments Nos. 194 to 196. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, said that he would look at our amendments. It appears that the Government have accepted some—Amendments Nos. 194 to 196—but not the rest. That seems a curious approach since the same principle underlies Amendments Nos. 194 to 196 as Amendments Nos. 197, 199 and 200. All those amendments probe the need to have regard to factors other than the conviction itself—for example, the age of the offender and the victim—before the notification requirement will apply.
The Government have supported that approach in our first three amendments on the offences of abduction of a woman or girl with intent to rape, assault with intent to rape and indecent assault. But they have not supported it with regard to the three further offences that Amendments Nos. 197, 199 and 200 address; namely, shameless indecency, incest as set out in Section 1 of the Criminal Law (Consolidation)(Scotland) Act 1995 and intercourse with a stepchild under Section 2 of the same Act. Can the Minister explain on what basis the Government have adopted some but not all the amendments on that point? Incest, shameless indecency and intercourse with a stepchild are very serious offences, yet notification in each case is triggered only if the victim was under 18 at the time of the offence.
Amendments Nos. 198 and 201 focus on a slightly different point. They would amend the drafting of paragraphs 40 and 51 of Schedule 3 so that subparagraphs (a) and (b) of each paragraph are read cumulatively, not alternatively. As drafted, if the offender is under 20, irrespective of the age of the victim, notification will not be triggered. We want both sub-paragraphs (a) and (b) to apply so that an offender under 20 is exempt only if the other party was a willing participant aged over 18. Essentially, our amendments limit those who can be exempt under paragraphs 40 and 51. The Government did not, we feel, give a satisfactory response to those amendments in Committee.
Amendment No. 202 would amend Schedule 4 by including a list of relevant Scottish offences in the Bill. The offences in Schedule 4 are relevant to the powers conferred on the court to make sexual offences
96
prevention orders. At present, as drafted, the Bill contains merely one line to cover Scottish offences that infer personal violence. We tabled the same amendment in Committee, when the Minister replied that, because most of the offences involving personal violence in Scotland were common law offences, it was preferable not to include on the face of the Bill a definitive list of Scottish offences. I do not understand why England, Wales and Northern Ireland have a list of relevant offences for triggering sexual offences prevention orders but Scotland has only the vague, one-line description of,
"an offence inferring personal violence".
That seems to lack clarity and definition.
The Scottish Law Society has told me that,
"the Scottish courts have construed the phrase 'an offence inferring personal violence' by reference to the circumstances of the offence and not the name given to the offence. In one case (Hemphill v Donnelly 1992 SCCR 770) it was held that to threaten violence is not in itself an offence inferring personal violence. Accordingly, offences such as that under section 16 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (threats to kill)(paragraph 6). which would be relevant in England and Wales, may not be covered under the phrase 'an offence inferring personal violence' in Scotland. This could mean that there would be a discrepancy in the offences covered by Schedule 3 in England, Wales, Northern Ireland and those in Scotland".
In the interests of clarity and consistency, we think that that is not satisfactory. Will the Government think again about putting a list on the face of the Bill?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, on Amendment No. 202, with which the noble Lord dealt last, as I indicated in Committee, most offences involving personal violence in Scotland are common law offences. If you set out a definitive list, you might miss something, because there is the whole of the common law to deal with. To provide the appropriate protection, therefore, it is best to take our approach. However, Clause 214—I am pausing, as there is no such clause. A particular clause—I will identify it when a note arrives in the box—allows the Secretary of State to amend the description of offences in Schedule 4 if necessary. That provides the better course.
The noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever, said that some of his party's amendments appeared to be supported by Cosgrove yet the Government were not implementing them. He asked what our reasons are for choosing some but not others. The position on that is essentially a matter for Scottish Ministers, but I need to consider each amendment. I shall respond to the matter in correspondence, and then the noble Lord can consider whether it is worth raising it at Third Reading.
I shall try to deal with the matter before the noble Lord tables amendments for Third Reading. I have wonderful news: the clause that I meant to refer to earlier is Clause 124. I apologise for referring to it as Clause 214. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.

97
Clause 102 [Sections 96 to 99: Scotland]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 190B:
Page 51, line 23, after "notification" insert "order"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 190B corrects a typographical error in which the word "order" was omitted after "notification". Amendments Nos. 190C and 190D make appropriate drafting changes to remove the term "sexual offences prevention order" where it appears unnecessarily.
Amendment No. 191 A sets out how sexual offences prevention orders are to operate for Scotland with the addition of the interpretative provisions of new Clause 103A by virtue of Clause 104(A1).
Amendment No. 192A sets out the extent to which the provision of the Bill as amended will apply to Scotland. At present, risk of sexual harm orders as set out in Clause 117 shall not apply to Scotland. The Scottish Executive will decide in due course whether similar provisions are to be brought forward for Scotland.
Amendment No. 201L ensures that where a court has ordered notification for an offence that does not carry notification but the evidence discloses that there was a significant sexual aspect to the offender's behaviour, there is a right of appeal against the order by the offender.
Amendments Nos. 212, 215, 229 and 233 are consequential provisions that recognise that we are replacing sex offender orders with sexual offences prevention orders. Accordingly, the various provisions and references to sex offender orders in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 and the Police Reform Act 2002, as they both relate to procedural provisions in respect of sex offender orders in Scotland, have been identified and listed as those provisions that need to be removed.
Amendment No. 216 is a consequential amendment to the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003. Section 21(9) of that Act places a duty on the court to adjourn certain cases following conviction to obtain reports. The provision was intended to provide an extended period of adjournment for sex offences or offences with a significant sexual aspect beyond that available to the court in terms in Section 201 of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. A late amendment to the 2003 Act during its passage through the Scottish Parliament should have resulted in the proposed amendment being made but was overlooked. This is therefore a technical amendment to rectify an error in the 2003 Act.
Section 21 of the 2003 Act makes changes to Scottish court procedures, placing a duty on the court to adjourn certain cases following conviction but prior to sentence in order to obtain reports. Section 21(9) was intended to amend the time limits for adjournment of these cases beyond the time limits provided for in the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995. A late amendment to the Bill had the effect of amending the
98
time limits laid down in the 1995 Act, rendering Section 21(9) unworkable. Amendment No. 216 will remedy this issue. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
8 p.m.
Clause 103 [Sexual offences prevention orders.. applications and grounds]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 190C and 190D:
Page 51, line 34, leave out from "section" to "in" in line 35.
Page 52, line 11, leave out "a sexual offences prevention order" and insert "an order under this section"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 190E:
After Clause 103, insert the following new clause—
"SOPOS: FURTHER PROVISION AS RESPECTS SCOTLAND
(1) A chief constable may apply for an order under this section in respect of a person who he believes is in, or is intending to come to, the area of his police force if it appears to the chief constable that—
(a) the person has been convicted of, found not guilty by reason of insanity of or found to be under a disability and to have done the act charged against him in respect of—

(i) an offence listed in paragraph 52C of Schedule 3; or

(ii) before the commencement of this Part, an offence in Scotland other than is mentioned in paragraphs 33 to 52B of that Schedule if the chief constable considers that had the conviction or finding been after such commencement it is likely that a determination such as is mentioned in paragraph 52C would have been made in relation to the offence; and

(b) the person has since the conviction or finding acted in such a way as to give reasonable cause to believe that it is necessary for such an order to be made.
(2) An application under subsection (1) may be made by summary application to a sheriff within whose sheriffdom lies—

(a) any part of the area of the applicant's police force; or

(b) any place where it is alleged that the person acted in a way mentioned in subsection (1)(b).

(3) The sheriff may make the order where satisfied—

(a) that the person's behaviour since the conviction or finding makes it necessary to make such an order, for the purposes of protecting the public or any particular members of the public from serious sexual harm from the person; and

(b) where the application is by virtue of subsection (1)(a)(ii), that there was a significant sexual aspect to the person's behaviour in committing the offence.

(4) Subsection (2) of section 104 applies for the purposes of this section as it applies for the purposes of section 103 and subsections (2) and (3) of section (Sections 103 and 104 to 107: Scotland} apply in relation to a summary application made by virtue of subsection (1) as they apply in relation to one made by virtue of subsection (1)(g) of that subsection."
On Question, amendment agreed to.

99
Clause 104 [Section 103: supplemental]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton moved Amendments Nos. 190F to 190H:
Page 52, line 24, at end insert—
"(A1 ) In this Part, "sexual offences prevention order" means an order under section 103 or (SOPOs: further provision as respects Scotland)."
Page 52, line 36, after "3" insert "(other than at paragraph 52C)"
Page 53, line 16, after "3" insert "(other than at paragraph 52C)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 190J and 190K:
After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS IN RELATION TO SOPOS AND INTERIM SOPOS: SCOTLAND
In Scotland—

(a) an interlocutor granting, refusing, varying, renewing or discharging a sexual offences prevention order or interim sexual offences prevention order is an appealable interlocutor; and

(b) where an appeal is taken against an interlocutor so granting, varying or renewing such an order the order shall, without prejudice to any power of the court to vary or recall it, continue to have effect pending the disposal of the appeal."

After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—
"SECTIONS 103 AND 104 TO 107: SCOTLAND
(1) Sections 103 and 104 to 107 apply to Scotland with the following modifications—

(a) subsections (1)(b), (2) and (3) of section 103 shall be disregarded;

(b) an application under subsection (5) of section 103 shall not be competent in respect of a person who is a qualifying offender by virtue only of a conviction or finding which relates to an offence listed at paragraph 64 of Schedule 4;

(c) in section 106(8), for the words from "orders", where it first occurs, to the end of paragraph (c) there is substituted "sex offender orders under section 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998";

(d) in section 107(8), for the words from "orders", where it first occurs, to the end of paragraph (b) there is substituted "interim sex offender orders under section 20 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998";

(e) references to a chief officer of police and to his police area are to be read, respectively, as references to a chief constable and to the area of his police force;

(f) references to the defendant are to be read as references to the person in respect of whom the order is sought or has effect;

(g) an application for a sexual offences prevention order or interim sexual offences prevention order is made by summary application to any sheriff within whose sheriffdom lies—

(i) any part of the area of the applicant's police force; or

(ii) any place where it is alleged that the person in respect of whom the order is sought or has effect acted in a way mentioned in subsection (5)(b) of section 103,
100
(references to "the court" being construed accordingly);

(h) an application for the variation, renewal or discharge of either such order is made by summary application to the sheriff who made the order or to a sheriff—

(i) within whose sheriffdom the person subject to the order resides; or

(ii) where the application is made by a chief constable, within whose sheriffdom lies any part of the area of the applicant's police force,

(references to "the court" being construed accordingly).
(2) A record of evidence shall be kept on any summary application made by virtue of subsection (1)(g) or (h) above.
(3) The clerk of the court by which, by virtue of that subsection, a sexual offences prevention order or interim sexual offences prevention order is made, varied, renewed or discharged shall cause a copy of, as the case may be—

(a) the order as so made, varied or renewed; or

(b) the interlocutor by which discharge is effected,

to be given to the person named in the order or sent to him by registered post or by the recorded delivery service (an acknowledgement or certificate of delivery of a copy so sent, issued by the Post Office, being sufficient evidence of the delivery of the copy on the day specified in the acknowledgement or certificate)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 111 [Section 110: interpretation]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 190L:
Page 57, line 34, leave out "England and Wales or Northern Ireland" and insert "any part of the United Kingdom"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this group of amendments seeks to extend to Scotland the provisions for foreign travel orders in the same way as they are currently provided for in the Bill for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, thereby providing a United Kingdom-wide system of such orders.
The purpose of Amendment No. 190L is to provide that the definition is contained in subsection (2) of Clause 111 of,
"protecting children generally or any child from serious sexual harm from the defendant outside the United Kingdom",
for the purpose of the making of a foreign travel order under subsection (3) is widened to cover the doing abroad of anything that would constitute an offence listed in Schedule 3 to the Bill if done in any part of the United Kingdom. At the moment, the definition only covers acts which would be offences if done in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The amendment effectively includes the Scottish offences listed in Schedule 3.
The purpose of Amendment No. 190M is to provide that the definition "relevant offence" at subsection (3) of Clause 112 is widened to cover criminal acts done overseas that would constitute offences listed in the specified paragraphs of Schedule 3 to the Bill being offences involving children if done in any part of the United Kingdom including Scotland. At the moment, the definition covers only equivalent offences committed in England, Wales or Northern Ireland.

101
Amendment No. 190N provides for appeal against the making of a foreign travel order in accordance with normal civil procedures in Scotland. It also makes clear that where an appeal has been taken in Scotland, a foreign travel order can continue to have effect pending the outcome of the appeal.
This amendment brings the procedure into line with established Scottish practice and mirrors as far as possible the foreign travel order appeals provisions that will apply in the rest of the United Kingdom as well as following the approach that we have put in place in relation to appeals against notification orders in Scotland.
Amendment No. 190P sets out the modifications appropriate to Scotland and the Scottish legal system subject to which foreign travel orders are to apply to Scotland. The procedures for the foreign travel order mirror the proposed procedures for notification orders so these modifications ensure that the various legal processes are consistent so far as concerns Scotland.
Amendment No. 190Q recognises that the Scottish equivalent to "an order for conditional discharge", which is not a competent Scottish sentence, is "a probation order". In the same way that courts in England, Wales and Northern Ireland will not be able to make an order for conditional discharge in imposing sentence for breach of a foreign travel order, this amendment will prevent the Scottish courts from making probation orders for breach of a foreign travel order. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 112 [Section 110: qualifying offenders]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 190M:
Page 58, line 42, leave out "England and Wales or Northern Ireland" and insert "any part of the United Kingdom"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 190N and 190P:
After Clause 115, insert the following new clause—
"APPEALS IN RELATION TO FOREIGN TRAVEL ORDERS: SCOTLAND
In Scotland—

(a) an interlocutor granting, refusing. varying, renewing or discharging a foreign travel order is an appealable interlocutor; and

(b) where an appeal is taken against an interlocutor so granting, varying or renewing such an order the order shall, without prejudice to any power of the court to vary or recall it, continue to have effect pending the disposal of the appeal."

After Clause 115, insert the following new clause—
"SECTIONS 110 TO 114: SCOTLAND
(1) Sections 110 to 114 apply to Scotland with the following modifications—

(a) references to a chief officer of police and to his police area are to be read, respectively, as references to a chief constable and to the area of his police force;

(b) references to the defendant are to be read as references to the person in respect of whom the order is sought or has effect;

102

(c) an application for a foreign travel order is made by summary application to any sheriff within whose sheriffdom lies any part of the area of the applicant's police force (references to "the court" being construed accordingly);

(d) for paragraphs (a) to (c) of section 114(5) there is substituted—

"(a) the sheriff who made the foreign travel order; or

(b) where the application is made by a chief constable, a sheriff whose sheriffdom includes any part of the area of the applicant's police force".

(2) A record of evidence shall be kept on any summary application made by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above.
(3) The clerk of the court by which, by virtue of that subsection. a foreign travel order is made, varied, renewed or discharged shall cause a copy of, as the case may be—

(a) the order as so made, varied or renewed; or

(b) the interlocutor by which discharge is effected,

to be given to the person named in the order or sent to him by registered post or by the recorded delivery service (an acknowledgement or certificate of delivery of a copy so sent, issued by the Post Office, being sufficient evidence of the delivery of the copy on the day specified in the acknowledgement or certificate)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 116 [Offence: breach of SOPO or interim SOPO]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 190Q:
Page 60, line 35, at end insert "(or, in Scotland, a probation order)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 191:
After Clause 126, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF OPERATION OF ACT
(1) The Secretary of State shall publish each year a review of the operation of this Act.
(2) The review shall cover the following matters—

(a) conviction rates in respect of the offences contained in the Act, including trends in conviction rates;

(b) practical difficulties encountered in interpreting the offences contained in the Act and their related defences;

(c) sentencing experiences in respect of the offences contained in the Act in comparison with the maximum sentences prescribed by the Act;

(d) any cases where prosecutions have proceeded in circumstances which were not envisaged when the Act was passed.

(3) The first report under this section shall cover the period from the commencement of the Act to the 31st March following the second anniversary of the commencement of the Act.
(4) A copy of the review shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 191 will insert a new clause after Clause 126. This new clause would require an annual review to be published and laid before each House of Parliament on the operation of the Act. The matters to be included in the review are set out in subsection (2).

103
Throughout our consideration of the Bill we have encountered a number of difficulties in being sure that the legislation that the Government have drafted will deal adequately with the problems it is designed to address. The Government have tabled welcome amendments to deal with many of the issues but there remain a number which have not been satisfactorily resolved. It may help noble Lords if I draw briefly from that list in order to illustrate the purpose behind each of the paragraphs of subsection (2).
Paragraph (a) asks for conviction rates and trends in conviction rates. The clearest example to give here is that for the newly defined offence of rape. I am sure that noble Lords will have joined me in being shocked at the 2001 conviction statistics given by the Minister on our first day in Committee. Only 41.2 per cent of rape trials resulted in a guilty verdict and that compares with 73.4 per cent for all trials by jury. I think that most of us believe that that has to be wrong, but there is still no consensus on how to achieve a better result through legislation. When this Bill is enacted it will have something in it dealing with the issue, whether Clause 1 as currently drafted or something else. Paragraph (a) would ensure that Parliament kept in view the conviction rates so that if they failed to respond there would be a further opportunity for Parliament at least to debate the issues.
Paragraph (b) asks for practical difficulties encountered in interpreting the offences and the related defences. Again, we have had many issues raised here. A simple example is whether the definitions of care workers stand up and what kind of contact is determined to be "regular" for both the abuse of trust and care worker offences.
An annual review summarising the issues would indicate to Parliament whether the Government were right or whether further legislation was desirable. Paragraph (c) covers reports on sentencing experience. Many of the offences have an option of summary conviction or conviction on indictment—for which sentences vary widely.
Regarding Clause 17, for example, the offence of sexual grooming, there is an option of summary conviction. Following amendment in Committee, that now has a maximum sentence on conviction on indictment of seven years. An annual report would allow Parliament and others to satisfy themselves that the law, which is designed to catch dangerous sexual predators, is resulting in appropriate sentences.
Lastly, paragraph (d) covers cases where prosecutions have proceeded in circumstances that were not envisaged when the Act was passed. We have had some interesting discussions in Committee about how the Bill, which is often extremely widely drafted, will be applied in practice. For example, the abuse of trust offences in Clauses 18 to 22, while drafted in broad terms, is intended for offences involving 16 and 17 year-olds. We do not yet have a way of excluding from the Bill's ambit harmless sexual activity between two mentally-disordered patients or between
104
consenting teenagers. However, we have been told that the Act would not be used to attack those areas. An annual review would allow all those difficulties to be kept in view.
We discussed a similar amendment briefly in the middle of the night on our last Committee day. The Minister then said that the Act must be fully operational before its success could be tested in any meaningful way. I accept that. Amendment No. 191 allows for a two-year lag before any reporting requirement would begin. I know that the Minister agrees that monitoring is important. The issue is whether the obligation to monitor and then report should be in the Act. We think that it should. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, we believe that when one has many new offences and new ways of describing other offences, monitoring the success of the new Act is highly desirable. We would be interested to hear the Minister's proposals. To have a review laid before Parliament may or may not be the best way, but we would like to be assured that the operation of the Act and its effectiveness will be reviewed in some way that is transparent and public.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the Bill is a major piece of legislation. It provides the first comprehensive reform of the law on sexual offences since 1976. Everybody agrees that we need to keep a very close eye on the operation of the new offences following the commencement of the Act. Everybody agrees that we need to monitor the Act's effect over a period of time. We do not believe that it is wise before even the Bill has become law to try to second-guess the best way of evaluating its impact. Commissioning particular types of research, setting up a review team or other ways of monitoring how the Act is working could turn out to be the best.
I do not wish to commit the Government to an indefinite annual review with such narrow terms of reference as defined in the amendment—although many of the items specified in the amendment would be among matters that would need to be looked at. That, however, may not be the best way of either performing the review or making it public. I accept that there should be monitoring and regular reviews and that their results should be made public. I hope that in the light of my comments the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. I am disappointed that he will not accept an annual review. We all agree that monitoring is important. The Government will obviously keep the matter under review, and in the light of that I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 127 [Part 2: general interpretation]:
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: moved Amendment No. 191A:
Page 69, line 2, leave out "103(1)" and insert "104(A1)"

105
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 135 [Extent, saving etc.]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 192:
Page 71, line 35, leave out "and 81" and insert "81 and (Sexual activity in a public lavatory)"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 192A:
Page 72, line 2, leave out "103 to 123 and Schedule 4" and insert "117 to 123"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Extension of gender-specific prostitution offences]:
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 193:
Page 73, line 10, leave out from "prostitution)," to end of line 11 and insert "leave out "common prostitute" and insert "person
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we had a sensible discussion of the matter in Committee. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said that it was all very well to try to deal with the ancient and, I find, entirely unacceptable practice of referring to a woman who is up in court for the first time as a "common prostitute" but the amendment that I wished to make would amend the underlying offence, which the Government would find unacceptable.
I studied the Bill in detail and found such an amendment to the underlying offence entirely acceptable. So, I press the Government again to consider whether we cannot rid ourselves of the archaic unfairness that a woman who has merely been cautioned on a couple of occasions by a police officer should be held up to insult and ridicule in court. It is two thirds of the way to a conviction, without any evidence having been offered against the woman—or, indeed, the man, as the offences are now to be gender neutral. We should do away with it.
I would accept as an answer a little further encouragement on the review to which the noble and learned Lord referred in an earlier answer. He did not put a timescale on it. The noble and learned Lord will know that, since the first days of this Government, I have asked them to reply to my questions and letters by e-mail. He will also be aware that on no occasion during the passage of the Bill has he sent copies of any of his answers or letters to me by e-mail. That is a long time. I understand that it requires careful consideration, but I hope that the noble and learned Lord can give us some comfort that the review will be with us within a reasonable timescale. It is a subject that we should be able to tackle directly and in the round, and I should like to see us doing that. I beg to move.
8.15 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I want to reinforce the point that my noble friend made about the more effective use of electronic mail. In the recent break, I tried to find out the noble and learned Lord's e-mail address. Unlike the rest of us mere mortals, he does not have an address such as thorotonc@parliament.uk, as
106
the rest of us do. I found it very difficult. In the end, I made contact with the department and got the longest e-mail in the world from the office. It is absurd these days not to have electronic mail from our Ministers.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I tried to put my name to the amendment, so I am not sure why it does not appear. I support it very much. Although we are not carrying out a thorough review of the laws on prostitution, we have been promised that it will come eventually. As this Bill re-enacts bits of the Street Offences Act 1959, this might be an opportunity to do some small thing, at least.
Charities that support and work with prostitutes have campaigned for 80 years to get the terminology removed. It is derogatory and judgmental, particularly if we bear it in mind that some of the women who find themselves in that situation in court and so addressed as a "common prostitute" are, in fact, victims. They may well have been trafficked or put onto illegal and addictive drugs by the pimps who control them. In most people's judgment, they are the victims, and it seems wrong to use such a derogatory and judgmental term when describing them. If this is an opportunity to remove it from the law, I hope that the Minister will take it.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, existing case law suggests that the term "common prostitute" refers only to a female prostitute. The amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, would remove that term and replace it with the word "person". I fully understand his reasons. The term "common prostitute" is, he says, archaic and derogatory.
Although the effect of the amendment would be fine with respect to gender neutrality, removing the term "common prostitute" would have other problematic effects. The word "common" in the expression "common prostitute" is important and is well established in case law. It means that the person must be a habitual prostitute, rather than a person who engages in prostitution on a one-off occasion. The offence is not designed to capture the latter category.
Accepting the amendment would open up issues that are central to the law on prostitution, which is outside the scope of the sex offences review, whereas the amendments in Schedule 1 will have a more limited effect, ensuring that the law applies equally to men and women. It is for those reasons that I must resist the amendment.
I must pick up the point about electronic communications. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, managed to communicate with me at my e-mail address at the Home Office. I hope that it will not be regarded as a personal remark if I say that the e-mail

107
from the noble Baroness came, in fact, from her husband's e-mail address. It may be that it is she who, unlike normal mortals, has no e-mail address.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, for the record, I have a parliamentary e-mail address. I just happened to be using my husband's computer.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, will the Minister answer the one question which I had hoped he would answer? Can he give a timescale?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am afraid that I cannot. I have dealt with it on two occasions—in Committee and again now. I have indicated our commitment to it, but I am not in a position now to give a timetable.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I know that I shall not win this one but I shall keep at it, as indeed I shall keep at the issue of electronic mail. It would be a very small step for the Minister to get himself an address on the parliamentary system. It could be set to forward to his ministerial address or to his ministerial PA. It would make matters a great deal easier for us because the addresses are all programmed into our machines and we could find the noble and learned Lord with the greatest of ease.
I appeal to him also to make some progress in the cause of our great electronic government 2005—which we have been promised for a very long time by this Government—and to making it a matter of course that those of us with e-mail addresses on the parliamentary system are corresponded with by e-mail or at least copied on e-mail. It would make all our lives a great deal easier. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2 [Sexual offences to which section 74 applies]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 193A:
Page 74, line 32, at end insert—
"( ) an offence of indecent assault upon a female:"
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 193A, 193C and 193D update the list of Northern Ireland offences to which Clause 74—headed "Offences outside the United Kingdom"—will apply. That is necessary here as Sections 61 and 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861, as referred to in the schedule, have recently been replaced by Articles 19, 20 and 21 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 respectively.
Amendment No. 193B is a necessary structural modification. Amendment No. 210B is a minor technical amendment which replaces an incorrect reference to "indecent assault against a female" to "upon a female". Amendments Nos. 201C, 201H and 201J harmonise the thresholds which apply to the statutory indecent assault offences across the genders. The same threshold will apply to Sections 52 and 62 of
108
the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and to Article 19 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2002.
Amendments Nos. 201D and 201G are strictly technical in nature and modify references in the schedule to the age limits which the victim must fall within to trigger the operation of Part 2. In each case a reference to "under 18" is replaced by "17". Amendment No. 201K makes a similar replacement to a reference to age 18 and should be accepted. Amendments Nos. 201E and 201 F are very minor and entirely consequential making necessary structural changes to the schedule.
Amendments Nos. 203 and 204 take account of the fact that Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 is drafted differently in application to Northern Ireland. Amendments Nos. 205 and 206 are consequential amendments arising from the proposed repeal of Sections 61 and 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861 and the Vagrancy Act 1898. Amendment No. 207 removes an unnecessary amendment to the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act 1912. Amendments Nos. 208 and 209 make minor modifications to the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968 which are consequential on the extension of the prostitution offences from Part 1 of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 210 inserts the new offences under Clauses 17, 22, 52 to 62, 69 and 70 from Part 1 of the Bill into Schedule 1 to the Children and Young Persons Act (Northern Ireland) 1968. Amendment No. 211 is consequential arising from the proposed repeal of certain offences from the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982. Amendment No. 213 represents a minor consequential amendment to the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. Amendment No. 214 inserts a reference to Clause 72 of the Bill into Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Children) (Northern Ireland) Order 1998.
Amendment No. 217 is purely technical. Amendments Nos. 218 and 219 take account of the fact that Section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 is drafted very slightly differently in application to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 220 repeals Sections 61 and 62 of the Offences Against the Person Act 1861. They are replaced by Articles 19 to 21 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 which makes the offences of buggery and assault with intent to commit buggery at Articles 19 and 20 gender neutral.
Amendment No. 221 repeals the Vagrancy Act 1898 as a consequence of the offences contained in this Act being replaced by the gender neutral prostitution offences in Part 1 of the Bill which are extending to Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 222 is consequential in nature and repeals Section 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1912. This amendment arises from the extension of the prostitution offences from Part 1 of the Bill to Northern Ireland.
Amendment No. 223 represents a number of minor consequential amendments to the Magistrates Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 arising from the repeals proposed.

109
Amendment No. 224 removes the reference to "gross indecency" in Article 2(2) of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, consequential to the repeal of Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. This amendment also repeals Article 3 of the 1982 Order, as that will be replaced by Article 19 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 and Article 7—a plainly discriminatory offence, as no such provision exists for similar situations in heterosexual relations. There is some evidence to suggest that that offence has fallen into disuse. Therefore it would seem sensible and appropriate to repeal it.
Amendment No. 225 repeals Article 10(2)(b) of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which is about time limits on prosecutions. This is a consequential amendment arising from the proposed repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1898.
Amendment No. 226 removes the reference to "gross indecency" in Article 11(1) of the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982, which is consequential to the repeal of Section 11 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885. This amendment also repeals Article 12(1) of the 1982 order, consequential on the proposed repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1898, and Article 13 as a direct consequence of the other repeals to the order.
Amendment No. 227 is consequential to the schedule to the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 arising from the proposed repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1898. Amendment No. 228 is a consequential amendment to the Mental Health (Northern Ireland) Order 1996 arising from the repeals already in the Bill and now proposed in addition to the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.
Amendment No. 230 represents a number of consequential modifications to existing repeals to Schedule 1 to the Criminal Justice (Children)(Northern Ireland) Order 1998. Those modifications arise from the proposed repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1898 and repeals, both already in the Bill and now proposed in addition, to the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.
Amendments Nos. 231 and 232 make consequential modifications to existing repeals to the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. The additional repeals take account of the repeals now proposed. Amendment No. 234 repeals Article 19(4)(a) of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003. This subsection provides that consensual homosexual anal penetration does not occur in private and is hence an offence if there are more than two participants. No such restriction is placed on consensual heterosexual anal penetration. That is clearly discriminatory, so it seems sensible and appropriate to repeal that restriction.
I apologise for going through the amendments at such length but that detail may be helpful to noble Lords who are not in the Chamber. I beg to move.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the repeal of Northern Ireland sexual offences statutes seem precipitate when a consultation exercise has yet to take place. Has there been consultation on the statutes that are now being repealed?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for raising a question on Amendment No. 183. Having spent some of the intervening minutes deciphering how that group of amendment works, I think that I understand. The noble and learned Lord need no longer write to me.
I shall be grateful for a further explanation of Amendment No. 207. What exactly is being rescued from oblivion and what will be the effect?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, perhaps I may reply in writing on that question instead of the earlier one.
In reply to the noble Baroness, the amendments deal with a number of statutory inequalities currently present in Northern Ireland law, as applied between homosexual and heterosexual offenders. Combined with the repeal already in Schedule 6, the total package will serve to address legitimate concerns among the homosexual community in Northern Ireland and increase its confidence in the criminal justice system. The work done by the Bill will be followed by a fundamental and comprehensive review of sexual offences in Northern Ireland, which will be underpinned by appropriate public consultation.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I questioned whether there has been consultation on the statutes that are now recommended for repeal.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is a limited series of reforms. I will write about the precise amount of consultation that has been done.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 193B to 193D:
Page 74, line 35, at end insert "or"
Page 74, line 37, leave out sub-paragraphs (iii) and (iv).
Page 75, line 24, after "children);" insert—
"( ) an offence under—

(i) Article 19 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/1247 (N.I. 13)) (buggery),

(ii) Article 20 of that Order (assault with intent to commit buggery), or

(iii) Article 21 of that Order (indecent assault on a male);"

On Question, amendments agreed to.

111
8.30 p.m.
Schedule 3 [Sexual offences for purposes of Part 2]
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 193E:
Page 76, line 7, leave out "18" and insert "16"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 193F, 193G, 198A and 200A. They all relate to consensual homosexual sex in a situation that is no longer an offence, where people are still on the sex offenders' register from a time when such situations were offences. I tabled the same group of amendments in Committee, where the Minister gave me reason to feel optimistic that he would find a way of correcting that injustice and allowing those men to get on with their lives. The existence of their names on the sex offenders' register is a great obstacle to their getting jobs and other activities that are lawful and desirable.
I have retabled the amendments to give the Minister that opportunity and I hope he will be able to set my mind at rest about the future life opportunities of those men. I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, as I indicated in Committee, some of the convictions for indecency and buggery before the age of consent was lowered in 2000 will have involved non-consensual activity with 16 and 17 year-olds. From before 1994 there may also be a small number of cases that involve anal rape of a 16 or 17 year-old.
However, I recognise that placing a registration requirement on those involved in purely consensual activity with a person who would now be above the age of consent is unfair and unnecessary for the protection of the public. It is not a question of whether, but of how. We have been looking at how we might be able to deregister such people while ensuring that those who should remain on the register do so. We need a practical solution that is fair to those involved but that maintains public confidence in the registration requirements.
That may involve looking at each individual case, but further work needs to be done on the practicalities. We will therefore provide a final statement of our intentions in time for consideration of the Bill in Committee in the Commons. I assure noble Lords that we are determined to find a solution to the issue that will remove from the register all those who were involved in consensual activity without compromising public protection.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reassurance and look forward to what is proposed in the Commons. Stonewall, which suggested I tabled the amendments, has suggested that applications from people who feel they should no longer be on the register might be an appropriate way forward with reassurance from the Minister that under the circumstances he has outlined such applications will meet with a satisfactory response. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 193F:
Page 76, line 10, leave out "18" and insert "16"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 193G:
Page 76, line 22, leave out "18" and insert "16"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, the list I have is wrong. I do not support the amendments. I apologise.
On Question, amendment negatived.
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 194 to 196:
Page 79, line 4, leave out from "rape" to end of line 9.
Page 79, line 10, leave out from "ravish" to end of line 15.
Page 79, line 16, leave out from "assault" to end of line 21.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 197 to 198A not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment No. 198B:
Page 79, line 38, at end insert—
"An offence under section 106 of the Mental Health (Scotland) Act 1984 (c. 36) (protection of mentally handicapped females).
An offence under section 107 of that Act (protection of patients)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 199 to 201 not moved.]
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 201A to 201L:
Page 80, line 22, at end insert—
"52A An offence under section 311(1) of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 13) (non-consensual sexual acts).
52B An offence under section 313(1) of that Act (persons providing care services: sexual offences).
52C An offence in Scotland other than is mentioned in paragraphs 33 to 52B if the court, in imposing sentence or otherwise disposing of the case, determines for the purposes of this paragraph that there was a significant sexual aspect to the offender's behaviour in committing the offence."
Page 80, line 25, leave out "against" and insert "upon"
Page 80, line 25, at end insert "if—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced, in respect of the offence, to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the victim was under 18, or

(ii) the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment,

(b) detained in a hospital, or

(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 18 months."

Page 80, line 44, leave out "18" and insert "17"
Page 81, line 1, leave out "("and insert "of

113
Page 81, line 2, leave out from "buggery" to "if"
Page 81, line 3, leave out from "under" to end of line 7 and insert "17"
Page 81, line 7, at end insert—
"An offence under section 62 of that Act of indecent assault upon a male person if—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced, in respect of the offence, to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the victim was under 18, or

(ii) the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment,

(b) detained in a hospital, or

(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least 18 months."

Page 81, line 19, leave out "18" and insert "17"
Page 82, line 5, at end insert—
"An offence under Article 19 of the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/1247 (N.I. 13)) (buggery) if—

(a) the offender was 20 or over, and

(b) the victim or (as the case may be) other party was under 17.

An offence under Article 20 of that Order (assault with intent to commit buggery) if the victim was under 18.
An offence under Article 21 of that Order (indecent assault upon a male) if—

(a) where the offender was under 18, he is or has been sentenced, in respect of the offence, to imprisonment for a term of at least 12 months;

(b) in any other case—

(i) the victim was under 18, or

(ii) the offender, in respect of the offence or finding, is or has been—

(a) sentenced to a term of imprisonment,

(b) detained in a hospital, or

(c) made the subject of a community sentence of at least I8 months."

Page 83, line 31, at end insert—
"A determination under paragraph 52C constitutes part of a person's sentence, within the meaning of the Criminal Procedure (Scotland) Act 1995 (c. 46), for the purposes of any appeal or review."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 4 [Other offences for purposes of Part 2]:
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
Schedule 5 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendments Nos. 203 to 217:
Page 90, line 4, after "vagabonds)" insert "except so far as extending to Northern Ireland"
Page 90, line 5, at end insert—
"In section 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824 as it extends to Northern Ireland, omit the words from "wilfully, openly, lewdly" to "any female; or"."
Page 90, line 11, leave out from "1861" to end of line 14 and insert ", omit sections 61 and 62."
Page 90, line 20, leave out paragraph 5 and insert—
114
"The Vagrancy Act 1898 ceases to have effect."
Page 90, line 22, leave out paragraph 6.
Page 91, line 13, leave out "In section 21 of"
Page 91, line 14, after "1968" insert "is amended as follows.
( ) In section 21 (causing or encouraging seduction or prostitution of girl under 17)"
Page 91, line 17, at end insert—
"( ) In Schedule 1 (offences against children and young persons to which special provisions of that Act apply), at the end insert—
"Any offence against a child or young person under any of sections 17 to 22, 52 to 62, 69 and 70 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 or any attempt to commit such an offence.""
Page 92, line 8, leave out paragraph 20.
Page 93, line 13, leave out sub-paragraphs (4) to (6) and insert—
"( ) Omit section 20.
( ) In section 21 (procedural provisions with respect to orders)—

(a) omit subsection (2);

(b) in subsection (4)—

(i) omit "or (2)"; and

(ii) for "either of those subsections" substitute "that subsection";

(c) in subsection (5), omit "or 20";

(d) in subsection (6), omit "and sex offender orders" and "or 20(4)(a)";

(e) in subsection (7)(b)(i), omit "or, as the case may be, chief constable";

(f) omit subsections (7A) and (7B); and

(g) in subsection (10), omit "or 20".

( ) Omit section 21A.

( ) In section 22 (offences in connection with breach of orders), omit subsections (6) and (7)."

Page 94, line 27, leave out "sub-paragraph (e)" and insert "sub-paragraphs (c), (e) and (j)"
Page 94, line 28, leave out sub-paragraph (b) and insert—
"( ) after sub-paragraph (1) insert—
"(m) Section 72 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003.""
Page 95, line 16, leave out "to 69 and 72"
Page 95, line 26, at end insert—
"Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 7)
In section 21(9) of the Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 (power of adjournment where person convicted of sexual offence or offence disclosing significant sexual aspects to behaviour in committing it), for the words from "—(a) "three weeks"" to "each case" substitute ""four weeks" there were"."
Page 95, line 26, at end insert—
"Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S. I. 2003/1247 (N.I. 13))
In the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003, omit—

(a) in Article 19(4), sub-paragraph (a) and the word "or" immediately after it, and

(b) in Schedule 1, paragraphs 1, 2, 20 and 21."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 6 [Repeals and revocations]:
Lord Falconer of Thorotonmoved Amendment Nos. 218 to 234:
Page 95, line 30, column 2, after "4" insert "except so far as extending to Northern Ireland"
Page 95, line 31, column 2, at end insert—
"In section 4 as it extends to Northern Ireland, the words from "wilfully, openly, lewdly" to "any female; or"."
Page 95, column 2, leave out lines 34 to 36 and insert "Sections 61 and 62."
Page 96, column 2, leave out line 4 and insert "The whole Act."
Page 96, line 5, column 2, leave out "7(4) and (5)" and insert "7"
Page 96, line 38, at end insert—
"Magistrates' Courts (Northern Ireland) Order 1981 (S.I. 1981/1675 (N.I. 26))
In Article 29(1), the words from "or with an offence under section 1(1)(b) of the Vagrancy Act 1898" to "homosexual act".
In Schedule 2, paragraphs 5(c), 10(c) and 22."
Page 96, line 41, column 2, leave out "Article 7(2)" and insert—
"In Article 2(2), in the definition of "homosexual act", the words from ", an act of gross indecency" to the end. Article 3. Article 7."
Page 96, line 43, column 2, at end insert "and (b)"
Page 96, line 43, column 2, at end insert—
"In Article 11(1), the words ", or gross indecency with,".
Article 12(1).
Article 13."
116
Page 96, line 44, column 2, leave out "and 4" and insert ", 4 and 7"
Page 96, line 47, at end insert—
"Mental Health (Northern the Ireland) Order 1986 (S.I. 1986/595 (N.I. 4))
In Schedule 5, in Part II, entry relating to the Homosexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 1982."
Page 97, column 2, leave out line 15 and insert—
"Section 20.
In Section 21, subsection (2); in subsection (4), the words "or (2)"; in subsection (5), the words "or 20"; in subsection (6), the words "and sex offender orders" and "or 20(4)(a)"; in subsection (7)(b)(i), the words "or, as the case may be, chief constable"; subsections (7A) and (7B); and in subsection (10), the words "or 20".
Section 21A.
Section 22(6) and (7)."
Page 97, line 17, column 2, leave out "1(e)" and insert "1(c), (e) and (j)"
Page 97, line 29, leave out "and (2)" and insert ", (2) and (4)"
Page 97, line 30, after "(3)" insert "and (5)"
Page 97, line 36, column 2, leave out from "67" to end of line 37 and insert "to 74"
Page 97, line 39, at end insert—
"Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (S.I. 2003/1247 (N.I. 13))
In Article 19(4), sub-paragraph (a) and the word "or" immediately after it.
In Schedule 1, paragraphs 1, 2, 20 and 21."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
House adjourned at twenty-two minutes before nine o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Extradition Bill
  (Second Day)
  Monday, 9th June 2003.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Fookes) in the Chair.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 11:
  After Clause 1, insert the following new clause—

  PART 1 WARRANT: AUTHORITY TO PROCEED REQUIRED WHERE OFFENCE SPECIFIED IN WARRANT IS NOT AN OFFENCE IN THE UNITED KINGDOM
  (1) This section applies when the designated authority receives a Part 1 warrant which specifies that the person in respect of whom the warrant is issued is accused of, or has been convicted of, an offence in a category 1 territory that does not constitute an offence under the law of any part of the United Kingdom.

  (2) When this section applies, the Secretary of State may issue an order giving authority to proceed with the warrant under this Part of this Act.

  (3) When this section applies, a person shall riot be dealt with under this Part of this Act except in pursuance of an order of the Secretary of State made under subsection (2).

  (4) The Secretary of State shall make an annual report to both Houses of Parliament on the cases in which he has exercised the discretion conferred on him by subsection (2) to make an order giving authority to proceed.

  (5) The following provisions of this Part are subject to the provisions of this section."

  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 258, which is consequential and provides the order-making powers for Amendment No. 11.
  Noble Lords will be aware that today is a very important day for this country. On the Floor of the House, a Statement will be made on economic and monetary union. I appreciate that the normal understanding is that Grand Committees do not adjourn unless Front Bench spokesmen are involved in taking the Statement on the Floor of the House. However, I note that in another recent case involving the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the Front Bench spokesman remained in Committee while another spokesman took the Statement. It is true that there can be ways around the problem. However, this is an exceptional circumstance. The Statement that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is anticipated to make today will be of great significance to all Members of this House. On the basis that this is an exceptional occasion, I invite the Government, with some temerity but I hope with some force, to say whether they have made arrangements for the Grand Committee to be
  GC 2
  suspended while the Statement is being delivered on the Floor of this House. Will the Minister respond to that before I go into the meat of my amendment?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Filkin): I thank the noble Baroness. Lady Anelay, for making her position clear at this point rather than closer to when the event may occur. No, we have not made arrangements for that because the convention of the House, as I understand it, is that unless Front Bench spokespersons are directly involved in the Statement being made in the Chamber, business in Grand Committee proceeds. One can see that there are good reasons why that is the convention of the House. My preference, as noble Lords will imagine, is that we continue making good progress on the important scrutiny work we are doing on the Bill. Having said that, clearly I am aware that many Members are deeply interested in both issues—this Bill and the Statement on the euro. Therefore, if the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, wishes to press the matter—if that is her firm wish—I shall concede and withdraw.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: That is a very generous response from the Minister. He recognised the fact that noble Lords who are taking part on this Bill are keen to press ahead with their work on it. I am sure that they will take those comments to heart and make their best efforts in that regard. Members of the Committee are very concerned about matters on the Floor of the House. When the Statement is made, I make it clear that we should press the matter.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I unreservedly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said. I make it clear that my noble friend's statement was very welcome. This is a very unusual, specific and important issue. The whole Committee is enormously obliged to the noble Baroness and my noble friend for ensuring that we can go to the Chamber. Whether we make a statement or not, it is very important that we hear what the Government have to say.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am most grateful to the noble Lord and the Minister for his response. It is my wish that we should adjourn at the appropriate time. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the Government Whip to notify the Minister at that point. In that spirit, I shall deal extremely quickly with Amendment No. 11.
  The amendment would insert a new clause into the Bill. It seeks to address the issue of extradition under Part 1 for offences under the law of other EU member states that are not offences under UK law. It would retain the requirement for authority to proceed to he given by the Home Secretary before such cases could be dealt with under Part 1.
  Members of the Committee will recall that at Second Reading the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, said that,
  "if a person goes to another EU country and breaks its law while there, he should expect to face justice. The fact that the UK happens not to have an exact equivalent offence should not excuse him … So the Bill removes the dual criminality requirement for offences which fall within the 32 generic offence categories … So

  GC 3
  while it is true, as has been commented on repeatedly, that the UK has no specific offence of … xenophobia, we have plenty of offences which fall within that category". —[Official Report, 1/5/03; cols. 855–56.].
  I press the Minister a little further in relation to the point he made at Second Reading. He was absolutely right to say that our law criminalises certain types of conduct which would be classified as xenophobia under the framework decision. However, can he say for certain that all offences under the law of all other member states that come within the definition of xenophobia are equivalent to offences here in the UK? If he cannot, can he tell the Committee what steps the Government have taken to ascertain the circumstances in which a person might be extradited under Part 1 from the UK to another member state for an offence that should not be an offence under UK law?
  There was much comment at Second Reading — both here and in another place—on the possibility of someone writing a Sun editorial and being caught by the rules. I will not rehearse that again, in the spirit of trying to move the amendment briefly. I shall simply press ahead and ask: what if someone produced an article in a newspaper or on an Internet site and went from this country to another country, or—to put the matter both ways—published the article on an Internet site abroad and came here? How would they be affected by the Part 1 rules?
  Briefly, the point of my amendment is that if we are to have Part 1, as the Government intend, is it right that the new procedures under Part 1 should apply even where the extradition offence is not an offence under our law? Or should there be some form of safeguard—this is all about safeguards—such as the requirement for authority to proceed to be vested in the Secretary of State? The amendment provides that authority to proceed. It also provides the "Bassam special"—the annual report—to show how the Secretary of State may or may not have exercised properly that power.
  In essence, in the amendment we attempt to provide a safeguard and ask the Minister to say why he believes that such a safeguard is not necessary in the Government's view and, if that is the case, how we should prevent the problems with dual criminality having unexpected consequences. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Were my noble friend Lord Goodhart in his place, he would make two points, which I shall make very briefly. We believe that the involvement of the Home Secretary in proceedings would be unnecessary for category 1 territories, and we fear that that will create increased opportunities for judicial review to delay proceedings.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I was not previously able to take part in proceedings on the Bill. The Second Reading debate was arranged—presumably knowingly—on the day of the Scots Parliament and local government elections. Anyone who took part on that very important day was not able to come here. I am glad that the noble Lord gave in today. I thought that that was a great mistake on the part of the
  GC 4
  Government; the Bill is so important to the whole of the United Kingdom. It was unfortunate that the Second Reading debate fell on that day. The date last week was my own fault and I apologise to the Committee for not being here.
  I was surprised by the comments of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie. I know from talking to members of the public that what worries people most about the Bill—if they realise that it is the case—is that it would be possible for someone from this country to go abroad to commit an offence, which they did not know was an offence, to come back and find that they could not be protected from extradition under any circumstances. They feel that they should be able to trust this country to have a Home Secretary who could protect them from extradition if the circumstances were such that he felt that that was appropriate.
  People are worried enough about politicians at the moment. Cynicism is becoming a very dangerous thing for democracy in this country. We all understand the problems with that; there are problems for politicians, and particularly for the Government. This is a great mistake. It is the one proposal in the Bill that the public would like changed. I support my noble friend's amendment.
  Lord Donaldson of Lymington: The spectre of judicial review keeps rising from one quarter or another. I have no hope of nailing it finally. However, I point out that the judges are no keener than the executive on people using judicial review for improper purposes. It can be and is very easily stopped by judicial management. There are two methods involved. One is providing that permission is required before one can begin judicial review proceedings and the other is after consultation with the judges. There is nothing wrong about consultation with judges. They need to know what are the problems on the ground.
  The other point is that under the judicial review regime applicants must act promptly. There is a longstop provision of three months, but there is absolutely no reason why the court should be bound by that. It would be perfectly open to the courts to let it be known that any application must be made within three days, or whatever. Any attempt to do an American-style—"keep on thinking of new ideas and bring them to the court"—could be quashed very quickly and simply on a permission basis.
  I turn to anecdotes only because I know about them. In the Court of Appeal, on at least one occasion—and there is no reason why there should not have been others—an appeal court stood by to cut out delay, so that it could at any time during the evening or the night have gone into session immediately the judgment was given below because the life of a Jehovah's Witness was at stake.
  In the industrial relations era—perhaps one must not mention that nowadays—there was a line of communication between the Secretary of State and the court. Therefore the court could be told the moment the Secretary of State made a reference to it and it could convene within the hour to deal with directions. These things can be done; there is no problem.

  GC 5
  However, there is great difficulty if a whole mass of cases is allowed to build up. But, providing the judges know what the problem is—as I have said, there is no reason whatever why the executive should not discuss these problems with the judiciary, provided that they know what the problem is—judicial management can virtually eliminate them. I do hope that we shall not hear a great deal more about, "Oh, we have to do this to avoid judicial review". The proper way to do it is to make certain that judicial review is not abused.
  3.45 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for tabling the amendments, which would partially reintroduce the "authority to proceed" stage in extradition. Under the Extradition Act 1989, the Secretary of State must issue an authority or order to proceed for each extradition case. The amendments reinstate this stage only when the warrant requests the person for an offence that is not an offence in the UK.
  That brings me to my first practical question: who decides whether the warrant is for an offence that has an equivalent offence in the UK? Amendment No. 11 suggests that it is the designated authority, which in the UK's case will be the National Criminal Intelligence Service, or the Crown Office. So we have a dual criminality test that was previously a matter for the courts being applied by NCIS—or the Crown Office, in Scotland. That seems slightly curious.
  NCIS or the Crown Office, having thus identified that dual criminality did not apply, would then be required to send the warrant to the Secretary of State, who may issue an order or authority to proceed—on what basis, we are not clear. Under the amendment, a warrant would be issued by a body we recognise, certified by our central authority, for an offence committed in the requesting state that is punishable in the requesting state for the threshold that we have set in law and the Home Secretary would have to decide whether to issue an authority to proceed. On what precise grounds could he refuse?
  Any decision made by the Secretary of State would have to be subjective—which, with no apologies to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, would of course mean that it could be judicially reviewed, and we would return to the process of appeals and delays that we on this side of the House, at least, want to do away with. The Bill has been drafted precisely to avoid avenues for defendants to delay extradition and, although I know that Members of the Committee did not intend to recreate those avenues, the amendment does so.
  Having set out the disadvantages of the amendments, I turn to any advantages that they might bring. What or who exactly are we seeking to protect? The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, went some way to advance an argument for them. In principle, it is that if a person goes to another EU country and commits an offence against the law of that country while there, he or she should expect to face justice if arrested in that country. We see no reason in principle, just because they have then left that country, for them not to face
  GC 6
  justice. It is as simple as that. The UK should not offer such a person sanctuary simply because we happen not to have an exact offence equivalent.
  If a person from another EU country comes here and breaks our law, we would expect to put them on trial. The fact that the conduct in question happens not to be contrary to the law of his home country would not be an excuse—nor should it. If he had managed to cross our border before being arrested, we would want to be able to extradite them. That is a central point.
  However, I reiterate that the Bill makes it quite clear that no one will be extradited for conduct that occurs here that is not contrary to our law. I shall now address directly the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay: whether people would be extradited only for what are offences in the UK. The answer is that not all offences of xenophobia in EU member states will necessarily be offences in the UK.
  In the European Union Committee, we have several times discussed the specific issue of denial of the Holocaust, which is an offence in Germany but not here. In a sense, that is the point of mutual recognition. Such offences will be extraditable in the same way that those who break UK laws while here will be returned here, even if the conduct would not constitute an offence in their country.
  However—this is an important point and relevant to the point about Holocaust denial—we are amending the Bill to make it clear that, if any part of the conduct occurs in the UK, we will extradite only if the dual criminality test is met. So, for example, if someone writes an article in the Sun or posts it on a website denying the Holocaust or saying that it did not matter, we might think that they were mad, but that would not be an offence in the United Kingdom. Because there is not an equivalent United Kingdom law of denial of the Holocaust, the person would not be extraditable from the United Kingdom, because the act had occurred here and there was not a matched offence here. So the only circumstances in which a person would be extraditable for Holocaust denial would be if he had gone to Germany, stood up, for example in KÖln market place and repeatedly said, "We deny the Holocaust".
  Having said that, one should bear common sense in mind. In the circumstances I have described, in theory, the German authorities could apply to the United Kingdom to extradite a person who had committed such an act in KÖln market place but, in practice—I hope to give the Committee more chapter and verse at a later date—I know, because I pressed officials on the matter, that the German authorities do not act in any way vigorously in that respect. So if we are focusing on Holocaust denial, the German authorities are not exactly zealous in pursuing it.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Will my noble friend give way? I am sorry to stop him in full flow, but I am sure that he will appreciate that some of us get a little disturbed when Holocaust denial is equated to the whole problem of xenophobia. I hope that, in relying so much on what the German authorities would do about Holocaust denial, he is not pre-empting our

  GC 7
  discussion of xenophobia. Does he appreciate that some of us get rather disturbed at the emphasis put on that by authority? It was not the only matter dealt with by the scrutiny committee.
  The debate on xenophobia is still to come. I appreciate that the Minister is giving an example, but it is significant that authority always turns to that example. Xenophobia is a much wider problem that may well disturb the noble Baroness who moved the amendment in a more general way, to which the Minister might address himself.
  Lord Filkin: I shall certainly do that, but let me respond more specifically to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn. He is right, of course. "Racism and xenophobia", which is the phrase used in other European member states, tends to be a more portmanteau term. We use the example of Holocaust denial because it is the one example that comes to mind of an action that is clearly not racist but xenophobic.
  I would be pleased to widen the illustration of other xenophobic acts that are offences in other member states but which are not offences here. We shall apply our mind and our officials' minds to that. I suspect that in practice there are not many, because in practice "racism and xenophobia" is used as a portmanteau term. I shall be delighted to return to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn either before Report or on another occasion, if we can find lots of other examples of xenophobia over and above the rather hackneyed example of Holocaust denial. I would not like to raise my noble friend's expectations that there will be many examples to get excited about, but we will go to it with a will, nevertheless.
  Let me also remind Members of the Committee of what I said on Second Reading: the UK has serious offences that are not replicated in all other EU countries. We do not want a person to be able to commit a serious offence, such as fraudulent trading or inciting racial hatred, in the UK and then flee abroad. We believe that it is right that such people be brought to justice; I hope that Members of the Committee agree.
  I note the support of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, for the idea that the involvement of the Home Secretary is unnecessary. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, rightly said that people may be unaware of breaking the law, but ignorance of the law has never been a defence. If that were the case, lawyers would be much more prone to prosecution than others, which would present a practical problem. For that reason, we cannot support her argument. I shall allow the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to respond.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It is all very well to say that not being aware that something is against the law is no excuse. The Minister's example of denial of the Holocaust is important, although it is getting a bit hackneyed. People might not have the slightest idea that they were doing something so dreadful. Yes, it would be insensitive of them, but they might well get carried away and break the law in that and other ways.
  GC 8
  It is frightening to think that one cannot ultimately be protected by one's own country vis-à-vis another because one is in the European Union and because of the Bill. Of course, judicial review is greatly to be respected, but people want to feel that there is a political dimension and an ultimate backstop. I am concerned about the matter, which is the one aspect of the Bill that worries the public—if they know that it is part of the Bill.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I see that the Statement is being made in the House, so I suggest that we adjourn the Committee for its duration.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Statement in the House from 3.55 to 5.7 p.m.]
  Lord Filkin: I believe that I was in mid-sentence in my response to the question raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about the subject of an extradition being in ignorance of the law and whether that would place them at a disadvantage. Of course in the situation where someone is charged with an offence which is against the law in their own country, that would not raise an issue and therefore I presume that the debate focuses on the 32 serious generic crimes where an exact equivalent of legislative infringement is not required for a person to be extradited.
  We have talked about racism and xenophobia being one instance but, without listing the other 32 crimes, they cover serious offences such as terrorism, trafficking in human beings, the sexual exploitation of children, trafficking in weapons, counterfeiting, murder, kidnapping, armed robbery, forgery, trafficking in nuclear weapons, rape, arson, the unlawful seizure of aircraft and sabotage of that type. At heart, the Government's position is aligned with that of other member states. These are such issues that one would not wish to frustrate a person being brought to justice only because an identical criminal offence did not apply in the two member states. That is the heart of it.
  My point is that, for the types of offences I have just described—putting aside for a moment our debate about racism and xenophobia—it is hard to believe that, under such circumstances, a person would not be aware that those were likely to be offences in any other civilised country. I feel that that is a reasonable position.
  Let me say something about the second limb of these amendments which requires the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the operation of this legislation. I am sorry that my noble friend Lord Bassam is not dealing with this since he is the Government's expert on the matter. Given that we do not believe that the Home Secretary should perform the role assigned to him, we do not see the need for a report to follow. However, I should like to put on the record that Home Office Ministers will be happy to answer Parliamentary Questions on the operation of our extradition legislation, including details of the numbers of cases, the average time taken to process cases and any other such information. No doubt if the

  GC 9
  Opposition parties were to request it at some stage, we would have an informed debate about the operation of the legislation. This House does that very well and it would be able to inform an understanding of how legislation works in practice.
  For those reasons, I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I should like to put on the record my thanks to the Minister for agreeing to suspend the Grand Committee so that noble Lords could attend the Statement. I found it most useful. As the Minister will be aware, our appetite had been whetted by the advance information circulated in the House that the last three pages of the Statement would not be provided to Front Bench spokesmen because they contained something that we would not have expected. Of course the Government are hoisted by their own petard. All noble Lords wanted to be in the Chamber. Perhaps our only regret is that the time taken by one or two of the earliest Back Bench speakers did not allow sufficient remaining time for all those who wanted to put questions and to contribute to the debate.
  I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. As always, I listened with care to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. His comments were to the point with regard to the fact that judicial management could help resolve many of the problems which the Government say are besetting our current extradition processes. In the future we shall need to consider whether there can be greater co-operation between the executive and the judiciary. It is a matter to which we shall address our minds in some detail when we come to debate the Criminal Justice Bill, but it is also relevant here.
  I am also grateful for the comments of my noble friend Lady Carnegy and for her support. She pointed the way to an important issue; that is, that the public is already concerned and will become even more concerned as it learns more about the Bill and the operation of the list of 32 offences to which dual criminality now no longer applies. Along with my noble friend, I was concerned about the lines of argument being developed by the Minister. They began by being rooted in fact, but then seemed to move to another sphere which we shall need to look at.
  The first was that the list of 32 offences is important because it is important that people face justice. That reflects the oft-repeated argument: why should one commit an offence overseas and not have to face justice for it? However, equating justice with criminal proceedings is not always the happiest of circumstances, but we shall let that pass.
  Surely the logical extension of the Minister's argument would be to say that there should not be a list of only 32 offences for which one loses dual criminality. If the argument that people must face justice whatever the consequences is so strong, then one would move eventually to argue that dual criminality could be set aside for all offences, not only for the 32 on the list. I am aware that that was not the
  GC 10
  Minister's argument—he is shaking his head in confirmation—but it is the logical development of his line of argument against the amendment.
  When responding to my noble friend Lady Carnegy, the Minister referred in particular to denial of the Holocaust. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made the important point that that is an important and significant offence, but we need to know about other offences. It is easy to pick on such an offence, one which would arouse disgust in any normal person in this country, but in worrying about something like that, it is possible to ignore debate on the broader issues. I was grateful to the Minister for what I thought was an offer made in his response that the Government would try to list what other offences might similarly be considered as offences of xenophobia throughout the EU. That kind of response would inform our future debates.
  The Minister wishes to intervene. I shall give way.
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: The noble Baroness is most gracious to infer from my body language that I want to put this point on record. The reason we have a debate about xenophobia is that it is one on the list of 32 offences to which people often respond: "If it is all silly, why should it be there at all?". That was why I sought to see whether there was anything else of more substance, over and above the issue of Holocaust denial raised by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn.
  Again for the record, the thrust or drift suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, is not the Government's position. It is also not the intent of other member states—so much so that there is a unanimity lock on adding to the 32 generic offences. I do not need to say how difficult it is to achieve unanimity in the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to indicate the strength that that lock implies in practice.
  That is our position. We do not see this as a process of elision; but, for a limited range of offences, it is right and proper to waive the dual criminality test, which is the normal basis of our processes. We shall return to those issues later in our debates on the Bill.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: That is where I should conclude my remarks. As the Minister said, we shall return to the debate on dual criminality, the list of 32 offences and how effective and appropriate they are in reflecting the implementation of the European arrest warrant.
  I want to refer to one further matter, which arose from a comment made by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, when he questioned the Government about the reference to Holocaust denial. I was concerned when the Minister sought to reassure noble Lords that perhaps prosecutions would not be brought forward against UK citizens. I shall examine his response carefully as it was given about an hour and a half ago. However, I have a note to the effect that the Minister appeared to say that the German authorities are not the most zealous in following up such

  GC 11
  prosecutions. The fact that the prosecuting arm of a state does not prosecute is not the best argument for saying that it does matter and we should have the offence there anyway. I shall carefully consider the Minister's remarks before considering in what form I need to bring back amendments relating to this subject. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 2 [Part 1 warrant and certificate]:
  Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 12:
  Page 1, line 15, leave out second "an" and insert "a judicial"
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 45, 46, 113 and 138. Amendments Nos. 46 and 138 are government amendments. I shall refer to them in passing and look forward to their presentation by the Minister. It looks at though they will probably meet most, if not all, of my objections. I do not wish to remove the ground from under my own feet before I go any further, so I shall naturally wish to hear his explanation; it looks, however, as though the Government have gone a long way to meet the issues that we raised on Second Reading.
  Both here and in another place, the issue had loomed large as to which authorities should be competent to issue a Part 1 warrant. Clause 2 requires that a Part 1 warrant must be issued,
  "by an authority of a category 1 territory".
  In another place, significant and welcome changes were made by the Government as a result of concerted pressure from all Back Benches, backed by a recommendation from the Home Affairs Select Committee in another place. The Government conceded that the designated authority in England should not certify a Part 1 warrant unless it believed that the warrant had been issued not merely by an authority designated for such a purpose in that country but specifically by a "judicial" authority.
  That change has brought about more protection for British citizens. Our amendments build on the principle introduced by the changes made to the Bill in another place. They seek to clarify and emphasise that the issuing authority must indeed be a "judicial" one. That is in line with Article 6 of the framework decision, which states:
  "The issuing judicial authority shall be the judicial authority of the issuing member state which is competent to issue a European arrest warrant by virtue of the law of that state".
  We believe that the "judicial" nature of the issuing authority should be stated clearly in Clause 2(2) when describing a Part 1 warrant and not simply be left until subsection (7), which deals with the grounds for which the designated British authority must certify the warrant. This, we believe, would reinforce the point that no warrant should be issued by any authority other than a judicial one, irrespective of whether the warrant reaches the stage of certification.
  GC 12
  I thank the Minister for the apparent movement on the matter. He wrote to me on 28th May. I understand that a copy of his letter has been placed in the Library, so I hope that all Members of the Committee have been able to read it.
  Now that the Government have conceded on the principle of stating in the Bill that the issuing authority must be judicial, it makes sense to make clear in Clause 2(2) that no Part 1 warrant is valid unless it has been issued by a judicial authority.
  That is all the more the case in relation to Clause 5. My noble friend Lord Hodgson will deal with Clause 5 in more detail later. The clause states that,
  "A constable, a customs officer or a service policeman may arrest a person without a warrant if he has reason to believe … that a Part 1 warrant has been or will be issued in respect of the person by an authority of a category 1 territory, and … that the authority has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the category 1 territory".
  As I said, my noble friend Lord Hodgson will go into the subject in greater detail, but we are worried that the Government seem to have conceded that these authorities should be judicial but have not clarified the point throughout the Bill. That is what the amendments seek to kick-start. I beg to move.
  Lord Filkin: In response to representations by the Official Opposition in another place, we introduced an amendment on Report to make it absolutely clear that all European arrest warrants must come from a judicial source. The relevant provisions can be found in subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 2.
  However, we have since realised—I am not surprised that the noble Baroness recognised this—that there are a couple of other references to the issuing authority and that we therefore need to insert the "judicial" stipulation there as well, which is the purpose of the amendments standing in my name.
  We are sure that the government amendments achieve exactly the same purpose as those of the noble Baroness. I hope that on that basis she will agree to withdraw hers and to support those that I have proposed, which I hope respond to the point fully and satisfactorily.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My noble friend advances the thesis that Amendments Nos. 46 and 138 achieve the same purpose as the amendment that is being pressed on him. But there is one big difference. The amendment proposes that, right from the outset, there should be absolutely no doubt that a judicial authority—I believe a ministerial statement once indicated that that means a court—must be the source of the warrant. Under the terms of the amendment that would be stated right at the beginning, on page 1.
  The Government made a mistake. They began with "an authority", and have had to go on fiddling about with the Bill, inserting "judicial" where they could find it—and there are two cases where they have failed find it until today.
  What on earth is the Minister's objection to setting out this point on page 1? It would be clear and straightforward: there would be no doubt at all that

  GC 13
  the warrant must be issued by a judicial authority. Why bother with bits and pieces, giving rise to the need to continue amending the Bill? On Report, the Minister may find another instance where that has been left out. He would not have to deal with the matter quite so badly if he were straightforward and said: "Page 1—that's it".
  Lord Filkin: As ever, I shall reflect on what my noble friend says. If, on reflection, there are better ways of dealing with the issue, we shall not be churlish or obdurate for the sake of it in resisting such amendment. But Clause 2 is quite clear as it stands. A warrant is valid only if it is certified by the UK certifying authority. The UK authority can certify the warrant only if it comes from a judicial authority, as set out in subsections (7) and (8) of Clause 2.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: Then why not say so?
  Lord Filkin: That stipulation could hardly be closer to the beginning of the Bill. Nevertheless. I shall not be churlish. I shall consider and reflect. I do not believe that there is any issue of principle here. We are absolutely clear about that, and I have been happy to respond positively to the request of the Official Opposition in this respect.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the Minister for his careful and considered response and for saying that he will re-examine the issue. The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, made an important intervention. He is attempting to assist the Government in obtaining the greatest clarity in the Bill's drafting. Not only those reading the Bill now but those who will put it into practice in future need as much clarity as possible. If we can make it clear from the start that the authority must be a judicial one, it will be of great assistance.
  I am glad that the Minister has agreed to re-examine this issue. In that spirit, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment, while welcoming the Government's amendments.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 1, line 16, at end insert "in ordinary language"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 155. They deal with an issue which I believe is of central importance to all criminal proceedings and, not least, to extradition.
  To be faced with a warrant that orders one's extradition to a foreign country to face prosecution—to face charges, as the Bill now states—is a daunting prospect for anyone, whatever his or her nationality. My amendments state simply that the warrant for the person's arrest, whether issued by a Part 1 or Part 2 country, should provide a statement of the crime involved and, in the case of category 1 countries, the necessary information in addition to that "in ordinary language".
  GC 14
  The issue of language arises in a number of later amendments to which my noble friend Lord Hodgson will speak. They have purposely not been grouped with this one because they address the separate issue of interpretation and translation. Here, in using the phrase "ordinary language" I refer to the clarity of the language.
  I am slightly disappointed that my protagonist, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, is momentarily not in his seat—or perhaps in "ordinary language" I should say "for the moment". When I raised a similar amendment in relation to the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, the noble Lord took me somewhat to task and asked me what on earth "ordinary language" was, saying that I ought to be able to define the phrase. On that occasion I had not done my homework well enough. I thought that it might be clear to all what "ordinary language" was; therefore, I did not proceed in as forceful way as I might have done. I have tried to catch up this time.
  "Ordinary language" is not an ambiguous phrase. If it were, the Government would themselves be guilty, as they have used the phrase in recent circumstances. I understand that Sections 46 and 47 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Services Act 2000—fairly and squarely on this Government's patch—introduce new sections into the Powers of Criminal Courts (Sentencing) Act 2000, telling the court to explain to offenders "in ordinary language" the effect of exclusion orders and draft abstinence orders. Section 65(5) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 states that a constable should explain the effect of reprimands and final warnings "in ordinary language" to the offender or appropriate adult.
  The important point is that the Extradition Act 1989—passed by the Conservative government and on which the Bill builds—uses the phrase "ordinary language". So there are ample examples of the use of that phrase. I refer the Committee to Sections 11 and 13 of the 1989 Act. I shall not take time to read them out, but I am sure that the Committee will want to examine them closely. The killer blow is that the precedent exists also in this Bill. Clause 91(2) states:
  "The judge must inform the person in ordinary language that … he has a right of appeal to the High Court".
  The principle is right: we need clarity and particularly as regards this matter. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and the noble Lord for tabling these amendments that draw our attention to the content of a Part 1 warrant. A considerable amount of time was devoted to the issue in another place. The Government also tabled amendments, which were generally welcomed.
  As a consequence, Clause 2 is very explicit on what a Part 1 warrant must contain. I invite the Committee to look at Clause 2(4), which I suggest is clear and comprehensive. Nevertheless, the Official Opposition have made a number of suggestions to improve it, which no doubt have been made in good faith.

  GC 15
  Amendments Nos. 13 and 155 would provide that all information in a warrant must be provided "in ordinary language". That opens up a debate as to what "ordinary language" means, how those words are defined and who decides whether or not a warrant contains it. It opens up the potential for much legal process of inquiry by the fugitive's lawyer to get a warrant struck down on the grounds that the language in it is not ordinary enough.
  One item that the warrant naturally must contain is the details of the offence of which the person stands accused. However—if the Committee considers the issue for a moment—the formulation of some offences in English law are hardly in plain or simple language. In fact, they are as the statue was drafted.
  While it may appear attractive to seek to translate offences in English statutes into what we might think is plain, ordinary or simple language, there are obviously certain risks in so doing. One does not actually capture exactly what the legislation intended and therefore a risk of challenge is opened up. Therefore, the answer to this must be that the offence should be listed in the warrant exactly as specified by the relevant legislation. The fugitive, against whom the extradition request is made, should be properly legally represented and legally advised so that he is advised by his lawyer of what the understanding is of the offence with which he is charged, as specified by the relevant statute.
  If there are occasions in British law when it is not easy or simple to understand in ordinary or plain language exactly what the legislation says without legal advice, the same must be true for the legislation of other European Union member states. Therefore, although the argument is seductive, it opens up the risk of finding failures of interpretation of exactly what a specific statute quoted—on which the offence has been levied—means or does not mean.
  There is a remedy for that. It is important that there is a remedy, which is that by the Government's insistence—a matter to which we shall turn later—people so charged have access to legal advice. That seems to be a proper and safe course of action. Therefore, a person can actually understand the meaning of the warrant as it is specified.
  For those reasons, without in any way wishing to be obdurate, we think this is the right and safe course of action. It reaches the same effect sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which we share, that a person understands with what he is being charged. The way to do that is by specifying in the warrant exactly what the charge is and by then having legal advice to interpret that in a way that the person who is so charged can understand.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: I did not speak before because I was very keen to hear what the Minister had to say about this issue. It is a very important point. I am picturing what it feels like to be confronted with a warrant with a view to extradition. It is fairly shattering. One would want to read the warrant very carefully. I quite realise that describing an offence
  GC 16
  from another country might well not be "ordinary language". I can understand that. But the Minister referred to Clause 2(4), which has four parts. It would be possible there to insist on ordinary language. For example, it would be terribly important to understand the,
  "particulars of the circumstances in which the person is alleged to have committed the offence".
  If the noble Lord is unsure what ordinary language is, I would refer him to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's Statement today which in parts was expressed in a totally incomprehensible way to people such as myself. I am not sure that that was not unintentional. I say that just as a sideline.
  Possibly the Minister can think hard and find some words which would allow the offence to be expressed in the proper terms, but with the rest of the description of the particulars and so on in—perhaps one should say, so far as possible—ordinary language. I do not know whether that suggestion is of assistance to the Minister, but I believe that it would be helpful for people to understand everything possible on the warrant at what is a moment of great trauma. I suggest he thinks quite hard about that issue.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I was going to put this point to my noble friend when he was semi-recumbent, but now I must speak to it as a point that is separate in itself. There are later amendments about language and issues that overlap. I am not trying to advance the debate to later amendments, but there is an overlap. I want to ask the Minister about something that has worried many people about the Bill as it stands.
  The Minister spoke about making the charge clear and so on. Clause 2 is valuable and I appreciate everything that is in it. Can the Minister point to any part of the Bill which ensures that these statements should be in English? This is not just a debating point because the Act, if it is passed as it stands, will be read in the context of the agreement we have made under the framework decision. The annex to the framework decision states:
  "This warrant must be written in, or translated into, one of the official languages of the executing Member States. when that State is known, or any other language accepted by that State".
  In that provision the translation is not mandatory.
  I have tabled later amendments about translation and explanation of the charges, so I am a little tentative about asking the Minister to go very far. I merely ask him at this stage whether there is any provision in the Bill to state that these statements must be in English. Is there any interaction with the framework decision that would prevent the argument that it is valid to present the warrant in one of the languages, or a translation, of the member states? The annex has mystified some people on that issue. I should be grateful if the Minister could point me to a part of the Bill that I have missed that solves the problem.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: I felt that the question I was going to ask the Minister was so naïve that I hesitated to do so until I heard the noble Lord, Lord

  GC 17
  Wedderburn. In which language is the warrant to be written? Is it to be ordinary language in French, in English or in both?
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I add to that: who will do the translation? A French translation into English is sometimes very strange, to say the least.
  Lord Filkin: I start at the end because the matter should—although I say that with some hesitation knowing this Bill—be relatively straightforward. These are not naïve or foolish questions but straightforward and necessary ones. The framework decision allows us to demand that all European arrest warrants are in English. We will do that as a point of government policy.
  To answer a further question: it will be up to the requesting state to translate into English—
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: What if a Frenchman who does not speak English is being arrested? Will he also get a French copy of the warrant?
  Lord Filkin: We shall turn to that matter on subsequent amendments as there will be debates about how a person can understand a warrant that is not in his language. The short answer is that it is important that a translation service is provided for that person. The reason for putting the warrant into English is because we operate in English and our lawyers and our courts understand English. Therefore, the requesting state has to put the warrant into English. As a matter of policy, that will be our position.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful to my noble friend. This matter must be cleared up. If what the Minister says is right—that we are relying not on the Bill but on the framework decision—there might be an advantage in putting that in the Bill. Then we would all understand the issue. But which part of the framework decision gives us the power to demand that the warrant be in English as opposed to the annex, which says that it need not be in English?
  Lord Filkin: We will hunt for that specific clause. It is usually sufficient for a Minister on behalf of the Government to make an absolutely clear statement of how one would put something into practice, for that to be taken in good faith. In particular, when that is reinforced by the practice of common sense, one can see why we would want it to be in English, for our processes to work appropriately.
  There are two further points on the matter. The foreign country which completes and sends the warrant to us actually initiates it. It puts on to paper what the offence is that it believes this person has committed. Therefore, the burden is with that country. One may say, "Well, that leaves the issue totally at large". It does not because there are two further tests within the Bill. First, NCIS, before it allows a request from another member state to proceed, must be satisfied that the warrant contains the information specified in Clause 2(4). Therefore, if the information is not there, or for some reason it is incomprehensible,
  GC 18
  it has the duty to send it back and to say that it does not understand it; it is not clear; and that it does not meet the test as set out in Clause 2(4).
  NCIS has that duty which it must discharge. One may further ask what happens if it makes a mistake and does not spot something that was unclear. There is a further test: the district judge who hears the initial application must be satisfied that the information is full and adequate. Therefore, there is a second protection if the judge thinks that it is unclear that the test in Clause 2(4) has been met.
  Those points deal as well as one can expect in a reasonable world in terms of trapping through proper judicial processes the test of Clause 2(4). They do not necessarily mean that the person who has been served with a warrant will understand every word of it. But I have given my answer as to why it is safest and soundest to phrase it as the exact legal offence, as specified by the requesting authority. We then expect the lawyer advising the person being sought for extradition, to give him the advice as to what it means. So, as one would wish and hope, he would be under no doubt as to what the charge was for which he was being sought for extradition.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I want to ask the Minister a question, but I want to preface it by saying that in no sense was I questioning the good faith of the Government. I accept what he says: the Government will say that they want the warrant in English from the judicial authorities that are the source. Unless I am wrong—and I shall check Hansard, of course—what I understood him to say was that the framework decision allowed us to demand English. What I was saying to the Minister was that that is not what the annex says. The annex says that it can be in any of the,
  "official languages of the executing Member State … or any other language accepted by that state".
  I suppose that, if we are the executing member state, it could be in Welsh.
  I do not understand whether the Minister is telling us that he will not consider amending the Bill on Report in order to make it absolutely clear in our own legislation that, without needing to go to the framework decision, we require all these things to be in English. It may be a very small point, but it simply seems sensible.
  5.45 p.m.
  Lord Filkin: I am perfectly happy to be challenged on the authority for my statement that we have the power to request this. However, if we have such an authority, I am less inclined to be challenged that we should have to include in the Bill a provision to specify a point which is so blatantly common sense—that we want these points in English, for the reasons that I have already granted. The reference, which I do not expect the whole Committee to thrill to at this point, is on page L190/13 of the framework agreement of 18th July 2002. The footnote states:
  "This warrant must be written in, or translated into, one of the official languages of the executing Member State, when that State is known, or any other language accepted by that State".

  GC 19
  The UK has only one official language—English. I therefore believe that it is beyond doubt that we have the power to request that all extradition orders made to us should be in English. It beggars my belief that we would not wish to do so.
  Lord Goodhart: Is not Welsh also an official language? It is certainly in ordinary use again.
  Lord Filkin: At the risk of inciting a minor riot, I am advised that it is not an official language for EU purposes.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The Minister's last comment was very helpful within the context of a later debate. It was an interesting remark.
  I have to tell the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, that I ducked out of the more complex issues on translation and interpretation because I knew that they would be raised later. However, he was absolutely right to refer to those issues within the context of my amendment on ordinary language. It is useful that we were taken as far as we were in directing our attention to the part of the framework decision giving us the authority to have the documents in English, as it now appears. Whether that should be stated in the Bill is an issue that we shall have to consider between now and Report. However, I listened very carefully to what the Minister said as regards the fact that it may not be necessary to do that given the Government's explanation and assurances.
  I am grateful too for the contribution from my noble friend Lady Carnegy. She raised the important issue that there may be another way of drafting my amendment so that it overcomes some of the Minister's objections that, in seeking to ensure that warrants are in ordinary language, the amendment may have the unwitting and unintentional consequence of assisting people to launch frivolous extra-legal proceedings simply to prevent their extradition rather than to conduct their case properly. I am certainly not in the business of trying to help people avoid extradition if they are the subject of properly launched proceedings. I shall therefore very carefully consider whether my amendment could lead to inappropriate extra-judicial challenge. However, if it were an appropriate challenge, I would revert to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, said earlier. It may well be that judicial management can ensure that legal challenges are not frivolous.
  We shall need to return to the issues raised by my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow about which language, and to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, about who translates these matters. Those issues will be key to the amendments in the name of my noble friend Lord Hodgson. I certainly have much to consider—in ordinary language and in ordinary time. I shall do so between now and Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns Baroness Anelay of St Johns moved Amendment No. 14:
  Page 2, line 1, leave out "is accused" and insert "faces charges"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 14 I shall also speak to Amendment No. 17. The amendments focus on a point which has particular resonance with many in your Lordships' House and in another place, so much so that, on Report, the Government made a substantial and positive change which we welcome. The problem is whether the Bill as drafted guarantees that one cannot be extradited for questioning, interrogation or investigative purposes but only—as I think we all want—to be prosecuted for a charge which has already been brought against an individual, with sufficient evidence so to do.
  We all know that there have been cases in which UK citizens have been arrested in circumstances that would not be considered appropriate here and in which they have been held for a long time. I shall not sensationalise those matters or take up time outlining them; they were discussed on Second Reading. However, in speaking to the two amendments, I invite the Minister to give assurances that such a practice would not be possible under the provisions of the Bill. Our amendments seek to ensure that we have a truly sound guarantee on this point.
  For example, in our jurisdiction, the "accused" has connotations of being "suspected" of a crime. That is how we regard the position although our European colleagues may not share that view. Accusations can be made without evidence. I feel that the term "faces charges", as the amendment proposes, carries with it a greater guarantee of official process.
  I am sure that the Minister will tell me that I am simply quibbling over wording, that my language is not any better or more ordinary than the Government's and that there is no way in which a person could be extradited for interrogation purposes. However, I do not think that the Bill as drafted gives a guarantee that people will not be extradited for the purposes of interrogation. I simply invite the Minister to explain why he believes that the Bill as drafted gives the safeguards that I am trying to insert. I beg to move.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I truly believe that this is a most sensible amendment in view of the fact that on Second Reading a number of noble Lords voiced concerns about human rights. Surely it is necessary to ensure that, if people are going to be extradited, they should not be extradited for the purposes of interrogation. Moreover, those of us who have received lobbying on this issue have had many instances explained to us of people being detained for very long periods. I think that that is quite unacceptable. So I really do think that the Government should be urged to look sympathetically at this amendment. Even if they do not like this particular wording. they know what it is all about. If they do not like it, perhaps they could come back on Report with different wording. I support the amendment.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I too support the amendment. The issue was also raised on Second

  GC 21
  Reading. It is essential that we stick to the letter of what is being proposed and that we do not allow people to be taken abroad and examined in different circumstances from those they would normally expect in this country. I am quite sure that not every country in Part 1 has the same safeguards as we do against methods of interrogation that we would not accept in this country. It is also true that people in this country are used to our forms of police investigation and judicial process, whereas in actual fact they may not be apprised of what happens in continental countries.
  There is the obvious difference that an examining magistrate in France, for example, does the investigation of the crime whereas in this country the magistracy is apart from that and the police investigate the crime. Therefore, it is essential that in this Bill we lay down beyond all shadow of doubt that people cannot be extradited simply for being accused of a crime, but are required to he taken abroad for a crime that has been proved to have been committed. I therefore have great pleasure in supporting the amendment.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I support the amendment. However, I should like to know—so that I do not interrupt my noble friend the Minister again, or try to reply to what he says—whether he finds with this amendment any difficulty with the implementation of Article I of the framework decision. It has been suggested that there is an ambiguity in Article I of the framework decision. It states:
  "The European arrest warrant is a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender by another Member State of a requested person, for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution".
  I stop there as the rest is not relevant.
  Some have suggested that that formulation might be consistent with an extradition for the purpose of gathering more evidence. It is not clear. I think that we are entitled to say that if it is the Government's policy to interpret it the other way—which seems to me quite possible; that the judicial decision must be for the purpose of conducting a criminal prosecution after the surrender—we are entitled to have it made clear in our own legislation that that is our interpretation. Therefore, the amendment, which would insist on the need for the extradition to lead to facing charges rather than an accusation, is relevant to the interpretation of Article 1 of the framework decision. I hope that the Government will not find any difficulty in the framework decision to which we have acceded in accepting this amendment.
  Lord Filkin: I thought when we started that there was not a great deal of difference between us on this one—maybe there is, maybe there is not; we will see.
  I think that all sides of the Committee are clear that in an accusation case—a case where the person has yet to be convicted—extradition should be possible only for the purpose of putting the person on trial; it should not be possible for the purpose of interrogation or evidence gathering. In fact, the Bill goes much further
  GC 22
  than our current extradition legislation. The 1989 Act, which governs how extradition requests to other European member states are handled, simply requires a person to be accused of an offence in the requesting stateno more, no less. The Bill goes beyond that by placing a positive onus on the requesting state to say that the person's extradition has been sought for the purpose of being prosecuted.
  In response to the comments of a number of Members of the Committee, I believe that the Bill as currently drafted fully meets the concerns and anxieties—which were perhaps most specifically addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn—that the part of the framework decision that he quoted might be open to some ambiguity. I refer the Committee to Clause 2(3)(b), which states:
  "the Part 1 warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category I territory for the purpose of being prosecuted for the offence".
  I do not believe that that could possibly be clearer. It is for the purpose of the prosecution that the person is being extradited.
  The legislation goes much further than the 1989 Act; even so, we have not been aware of any problems since 1989 in this respect. However, I would be open to being educated if any Members of the Committee know of any examples of that being the case. Similar amendments were tabled in another place, and in the debate there, Mr John Maples, the honourable Member for Stratford-on-Avon, said that he was happy with the words in the framework decision. The way that we have expressed it in the legislation is, if anything, even clearer.
  The framework decision states that an EAW should only be issued,
  "for the purposes of conducting a criminal prosecution".
  The words in the Bill seem to me even stronger than that. In that light, I shall reflect on what has been said, although I do not want that phrase to be interpreted as meaning that I am minded to change our view. That is not what I am implying. I believe the position to be absolutely clear. I hope that it is recognised that we have sought to respond to representations made in another place to put the matter beyond doubt. Therefore, I invite the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, to withdraw her amendment.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I am not an expert in the law in any way. However, the Minister referred to the 1989 Act, which has an entirely different procedure. Under that Act, prima facie evidence would have to be provided. Is that not so?
  Lord Filkin: No, it has not been so since 1991, when the then Conservative government made prima facie evidence not a requirement of such extradition requests.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: In view of the Minister's remarks on ordinary language and the fact that the issuing authority issues the warrant, who is to decide whether the warrant is all right according to this

  GC 23
  country? The judge cannot do that—or can he? He does not decide whether the warrant is okay; he decides whether the person described on the warrant is the person intended. Have I got that wrong? I am simply wondering who checks that what the Minister says about the warrant is so.
  Lord Filkin: It is clear that a Part 1 warrant under Clause 2(3)(b) can be valid only if it is for the purpose of a prosecution. A request from a member state to this country for extradition for the purpose of investigation or interrogation would not be lawful.
  I said previously in another debate that there are two early procedural stages of testing, even before we get to the substantive hearing, when the matter is considered in its full merits. The first stage is the National Criminal Intelligence Service, which would expect to see in English on the face of the warrant a clear statement that it was an extradition request for the particular offence that had been committed in the opinion of the requesting state. If on the initial application, whereby the judge was essentially testing the issues under Clause (2)(4)(a) to (d), there was then a doubt in the district judge's mind that the request was for a prosecution case—if he believed that it might be for a fishing trip or an interrogation—I should have thought that he had the power to strike out the application. If I am wrong on this matter, I shall write to Members of the Committee.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: As I understand it, the whole purpose of changing the law on category 1 extradition is so that, for example, one does not have to prove a prima facie case. However, I am not sure how that fits in with what the Minister has just said. Surely, the judicial process in this country is limited to accepting the word of the other territory that the request is for a prosecution rather than an accusation. The Minister implied that the judge would not grant the extradition if the judge felt that it might be that the individual was merely being accused rather than tried. I do not know how the judge can be sure that there is insufficient evidence and so on, if there is to be no need to prove prima facie evidence in this country.
  Lord Filkin: I have two responses to that intervention. That has been the situation since 1991, which is 12 years ago. I am not making a debating point—I would be pleased to know whether there have been any areas of difficulty. We are not aware of any in the Home Office, although that does not mean to say that there will never be any. However, at least there do not appear to have been frequent difficulties.
  The fact that since 1991 there has been no requirement to have prima facie evidence that sets out the case in full does not mean that there is not a requirement that the extradition should be for a trial as a result of a charge that has been levied. Therefore, if either NCIS or the judge decides that the warrant
  GC 24
  does not contain all the required information making it clear that the request related to a trial rather than to an interrogation, the judge would strike it out.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I pursue the matter. After all, it is what we ought to do in Committee where issues of human liberty are concerned. This is not a proper discussion for Report stage.
  Will the Minister consider what the amendment raises—that is, the wording of subsection (3)? The subsequent subsections do not solve the problem. Subsection (3)(a) says that the statement must be one where,
  "the person in respect of whom the Part 1 warrant is issued is accused in the category 1 territory of the commission of an offence specified".
  There we have an accusation.
  Subsection (3)(b) says that the statement must make it clear that,
  "the Part I warrant is issued with a view to his arrest and extradition to the category 1 territory for the purpose of being prosecuted".
  Is that language really sufficient? I hope that the Minister will reconsider the matter. "With a view to" is a subjective formula; the purpose is ultimately of his being prosecuted,
  "with a view to his arrest … for the purpose of being prosecuted".
  Surely, it would be better to say that charges must be made clear at the time when he is accused. The problem is not solved by the subsequent subsections. Will the Minister look at the subsection again?
  Lord Filkin: I believe that I have understood the thrust of the point made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn about subsection (3), which returns us to his worry that there was an ambiguity in the framework agreement that is repeated in the legislation. I say that in good faith, as that is what I understood about his comments on the framework agreement—that it was potentially open to a misinterpretation allowing for the possibility that someone could be sought for extradition for interrogation, with the view that it might help a subsequent prosecution when it had not yet been decided to prosecute.
  I shall reflect on the matter, with the caveat that I mentioned before, that I am not implying that we shall change our minds. It seems to me that,
  "for the purpose of being prosecuted",
  must mean that those involved believe that they have the evidence to levy charges.
  I do not wish to spend time debating the matter now, as it is better that we get our lawyers to consider it, but if I am wrong we will change the legislation. If I am not wrong, we will explain either in a letter before Report stage or in the Report debate itself why we believe that the point is safe. It is a good challenge—the Government are being asked, "Is this point safe?"
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Wedderburn, for their support and for their forensic examination of the purpose behind my amendment. I agree entirely with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, who said that it might be possible to find different wording to mine to achieve the right objective. Like the Minister, I shall undertake to reflect carefully on the drafting of the amendments between now and Report stage.
  The combination of the arguments made by the noble Lords, Lord Stoddart and Lord Wedderburn, went to the heart of the matter. People need to be assured that the way in which they will be treated by a jurisdiction in Europe where corpus juris comes into play is fair and clearly laid out in the Bill. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Wedderburn, was particularly concerned about ambiguity, and there remains a level of ambiguity in the Bill.
  The Minister made two points. First, he said that in another place my honourable friend John Maples had accepted the government amendments and made no further amendments of his own later on. My amendment simply reflects the fact that we have been talking to our friends in another place between the Bill leaving there and arriving here. We decided that there was a remaining ambiguity that needed to be resolved and that we should table these amendments, which are rather different from those debated in another place.
  The Minister also repeated the comment that he has made in many occasions in the past—and will no doubt continue to make in future—with regard to the 1989 Act and the prima facie rule being dropped. Our riposte is always to say that this is a different animal. In Part I, other concessions are being made by the Government as part of the framework decision. They are giving up safeguards, which makes our approach to Part I necessarily different from that to the loss of the prima facie rule in the past.
  I am grateful for the way in which the Minister responded to my noble friend Lord Carlisle, who asked how a judge could knock out an application if he thought that it was for a fishing trip. The Minister's response was to explain that there should be sufficient information on the warrant for the judge to be able to make an appropriate decision as to whether it was a fishing trip that was involved. That was an important comment, and I shall consider it carefully.
  I should put on record my thanks for the courtesy of a body outwith this House—the Bow Street magistrates' court. It has been made possible for me to attend an extradition case tomorrow so that I may see what the current status is under the 1989 Act before I make any further pronouncements on that particular piece of legislation.
  I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will reflect. I most certainly will do so, as the matter needs to be resolved in some way on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 15 to 17 not moved.]
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 18:
  Page 2, line 12, leave out from "including" to end of line 14 and insert "a description of the circumstances in which the offence was committed, including the time, place and degree of participation in the offence by the requested person, the nature and legal classification of the offence and the applicable statutory provision;"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 22. The amendment appears in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  Amendment No. 18 was tabled in response to representations from Liberty, which is particularly concerned that there is currently no need to establish a case against those facing extradition to category 1 countries. As I have just said, that may well be in line with current practice under the 1989 Act where no prima facie evidence is required from those signed up to the European Convention on extradition. We had quite a debate on that at Second Reading which I shall certainly not seek to repeat. However, we feel that there should at the very least be a statement of facts that establishes more than simply the identity of the accused and that the offence is an extradition offence. That is vital. Having heard the Minister's response to the previous group of amendments, I hope that he may well be able to flesh out his response to those amendments and place on the record assurances that may resolve our concerns.
  In most extradition cases, it would be little more than a formality to identify those cases where there was a concern about the legitimacy of the extradition—for example, if extradition should be barred on account of political prosecution under the extraneous considerations provisions. It is similar to a "tick box" exercise.
  In Committee in another place, Clause 2(4) was introduced. It requires some level of detail. The Government responded to concerns that had been expressed in that regard. However, the framework decision on the European arrest warrant contains an annex model of the warrant. In the interests of legal certainty and clarity, the Bill should explicitly state the details required on the warrant to allow the judge to reach a reasoned decision. In particular, the details of the offence must include sufficient detail of the legal basis of the offence and the specifics of the conduct alleged in order for the judge to establish a reasoned connection between the offence or type of offence and the alleged conduct.
  If the Government are unwilling to adopt Amendment No. 18, which uses the same wording as part (e) of the warrant, they might look more favourably on Amendment No. 22. It states:
  "The statement referred to in subsections (3) and (5)"—
  of Clause 2—
  "shall conform with the model warrant",
  which is set out in the annex. I believe that it is necessary to have something on the face of the Bill to give us guidance as to what the warrant should include in terms of detail. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: As the noble Baroness said, the amendment also appears in my name. The amendment's words are taken directly from the annex to the framework agreement, which sets out the form of the warrant. They involve what appears to be pretty ordinary language—at least as ordinary as the language in the Bill—and it would be better, simpler and clearer to use the words in the annex to the framework decision rather than the paraphrase of those words in subsection (4)(c). Moreover, subsection (4)(c) leaves out certain parts of the wording in the annex, particularly that relating to the legal basis. There is a clear case for adopting Amendment No. 18.
  Lord Filkin: We have already spent some time on the warrant so I shall try not to repeat myself unnecessarily. The point that I must emphasise is that the Government have put some effort into drafting the Bill to ensure that its provisions are both clear and concise.
  Amendment No. 18 seeks to put additional wording on the face of the Bill. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, I recognise those words. They are the words to be found in Article 8(1) of the framework decision. Including the provision would be a desirable thing to do were it not for the fact that the Bill already sets out exactly what a warrant should contain, based on the list in Article 8(1) of the framework decision. Moreover—this is the key point—the Bill does so in language which is more clear than that in the framework decision. What, for example, does "legal classification" mean? What does the,
  "degree of participation in the offence",
  mean, and how would it be assessed?
  I do not see any need to import wording from the framework decision just for the sake of it when we have a perfectly adequate provision in the Bill which does the job well. Let me seek to illustrate how it does so. We believe that we have included all of the safeguards that the framework decision allows us. Amendment No. 22 provides that the content of a warrant must conform to the model arrest warrant appended to the framework decision. However, if noble Lords examine what that model warrant contains, they will see that the requirements that are already in the Bill already cover it. For example, the first section of the model warrant asks for details of the person's identity. That information is already a requirement by virtue of Clause 2(4)(a).
  The next thing that must be provided in the model warrant is details of the judicial decision on which it is based. That information is already a requirement by virtue of Clause 2(4)(b). The model warrant also contains details of the sentence that could be imposed. Clause 2(4)(d) means that that information must be provided.
  Information is also sought in cases of conviction in absentia. However, that information already has to be supplied to comply with Clause 20 of the Bill. Then further details of the offence are required, including whether it falls into one of the 32 generic offence categories. That information already has to be supplied in order to comply with Clauses 10 and 63. I
  GC 28
  could go on but I hope that noble Lords will take the point. The Bill, as currently formulated, already requires the information which forms the model warrant to be supplied. If it is not, extradition cannot and will not take place.
  I hope, for the reasons that I have set out, that it is clear that we have already fully complied in the Bill with what the framework decision says in this respect and have done so in a way that is clear and concise.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I shall reflect carefully on what the Minister said. I am particularly struck by the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said that his preference was for the words in the warrant annex rather than the paraphrase in subsection (4)(c). That is exactly why I tabled Amendment No. 18. We must look carefully at the Minister's final comments that the Government have met the principles in the framework decision properly in the Bill and that that has given sufficient clarity. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 19 to 22 not moved.]
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 23:
  Page 2, line 37, leave out "it believes that"
  The noble Lord said: I make it clear, in view of a remark that the Minister made, that I am not in favour of helping people to avoid extradition when they have committed crimes. However, I am in favour of making sure that the Bill—which, after all, involves a totally new regime in Part 1—provides adequate protections. I am especially mystified—this is the reason for the amendment—by Clause 2(7). The provisions as to who can issue a valid European arrest warrant have been the subject of some controversy and some change in the Bill. We began with the notion that any authority that is competent to issue it was enough. The Government have had to make changes in the Bill and they are making further changes today. This is not a debate on the spur of the moment; it is one with some history. The Home Affairs Select Committee in another place stated on 28th November 2002:
  "We agree with the European Scrutiny Committee that the European Arrest Warrant should be able to be issued only by a judicial authority exercising recognised judicial functions in an independent manner".
  In its 17th report on 9th January, at paragraph 58, the European Scrutiny Committee stated that the framework decision,
  "as finally adopted, refers to the EAW as being a judicial decision issued by a member state".
  It also thought that the term "judicial authority" had to be clarified. In the House of Commons, the Minister, my honourable friend Mr Ainsworth, said:
  "the only people who are allowed to issue a European arrest warrant are those who have that function under the framework document. That document spells out that such people must be judicial authorities".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; col. 49.]

  GC 29
  I imagine that the Government would agree that, subject to the odd word, there is nothing in those statements about "believing" that the issuing body is this or that. One could believe what one likes; but it must be a judicial authority. Yet Clause 2(7) states that the designated authority—our court—may issue a certificate,
  "if it believes that the authority which issued the Part I warrant … is a judicial authority of the category 1 territory, and … has the function of issuing arrest warrants".
  Clause 2(8) states that the,
  "certificate must certify that the authority is a judicial authority".
  I want to remove the words,
  "if it believes that",
  so that the Bill reads that our court,
  "may issue a certificate under this section if the authority which issued the Part 1 warrant … is a judicial authority".
  Perhaps I have been insufficiently diligent, but I have found no explanation for the inclusion of the words "it believes"—introducing a subjective test—in the Bill.
  Some people may say, "That does not matter. After all, no one would be silly and believe things that are not true". Life is not like that. A forged document may be produced to the court. A document may be produced that induces a mistake. The court might believe that the issuing body had fulfilled all the tests that one could possibly include in the Bill, but its belief should not by itself be the basis for a person's loss of liberty by extradition.
  I want to press that point hard, because on 9th January the Minister, Mr Ainsworth, himself stressed that a host of bodies in other jurisdictions might issue arrest warrants. He said that there is:
  "the examining magistrate at Liege, the magistrate at the public prosecutor's office in Amsterdam, the Court of Brescia, the county tribunal of Bobigny, or even the magistrate judge Maria Teresa Palacios Criado in Madrid. That gives an idea of the span of arrangements".—[Official Report, 9/1/03; col. 48.]
  I must admit that I have not discovered exactly who or what is Maria Teresa, but a court might be equally mystified if faced with a document stating, "This is from Maria Teresa. You all know Maria Teresa; the Minister said who she was; it must be all right".
  I appreciate that that will be said to be far-fetched, but Bills should not allow even for far-fetched possibilities. It is the mark of slovenly and slack legislators that they tell us that there is no possibility of contingencies being fulfilled for which legislation leaves an opening. Time and again, life is so strange that even far-fetched contingencies sometimes become real.
  The right question is: is it in fact a judicial authority; not whether someone, whoever he may be and on whatever evidence, believes that it is a judicial authority. At the least, I hope that the Minister will agree to reconsider the matter, because it is not unimportant. If I can show that my client faces an arrest warrant issued by a body that is not a judicial authority and can prove that case beyond a reasonable doubt, the belief of whoever that that is not so should not allow for extradition and arrest or, more
  GC 30
  particularly—I know that the Minister does not like this word—surrender, which is the word used several times in the framework decision.
  So I move the amendment hoping that Ministers will reconsider the wording. If I have missed their previous explanation, I apologise, but I do not think that they have ever given one, and it is time to know why those odd words appear in the Bill. I beg to move.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I support the amendment moved by my noble friend, to which my name is attached. The Bill is an extraordinary measure—as I think that many Members of the Committee agree. Much of what is proposed in it is controversial, as was apparent during debate on Second Reading.
  As my noble friend said, we are not in the business of opposing extradition. Crime is becoming international, and no one should he able to escape justice simply by crossing a border into another country. So we have in the framework directive—although not in the Bill—32 categories of offences that fall within the scope of the Bill. There will be an opportunity to debate that when we discuss later amendments.
  The Explanatory Notes state:
  "The law should provide a quick and effective framework to extradite a person accused or convicted",
  of one of those offences,
  "provided that this does not breach his fundamental human rights".
  That has caused much concern and motivated most of the amendments in my name and that of my noble friend. Our first amendment relates to the requirement in the framework directive that a judicial decision is required to start the process. As has already been said today, that is crucial.
  Who can issue a valid arrest warrant? In foreign jurisdictions, there are many different bodies, but it is clear that by "a judicial authority" is meant a court. As my noble friend said, it is not a question of belief. It is either a court or it is not. It is only a judicial authority within the meaning of the framework directive—and hence the Bill—if it is a court. A belief that a body issuing an arrest warrant is a court will simply not do. That is so clear and obvious, and it is so necessary that there should be no ambiguity, that I cannot believe that the Government will not accept the amendment.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I rise to support my noble friends, but I do not think that it is a matter of huge importance. However, I have come to the view that this statute ought to be very precise. Why are these words in the provision? Are they not entirely redundant? When he comes to respond to this debate, I hope that my noble friend will say, "I am going to think about this", because I do not believe—I must not use that word—that the words "it believes that" have authority in any other provision, or at least so far as I know.

  GC 31
  I ask my noble friend to come to the conclusion that he will take the amendment away and think about the issue. I cannot believe that the statute would be any the worse if the phrase were left out.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It seems eminently sensible to accept the amendment.
  I wish to put a question to the Minister. This whole discussion reflects the vagueness and sense of compromise under which framework decisions are reached and with which we are inclined to discuss them subsequently. Surely what is needed here is a list of which judicial authorities can issue warrants. All countries will need such a list in order to be certain that they are valid. In previous discussions I may have missed mention of the fact that such a list already exists, but if that is the case then there is no earthly reason why the amendment should not be accepted. It would be the right thing to do. The warrant would have to be issued by an authority included on the list. Without the list, surely the process will be difficult to operate. It should be an absolute necessity. Whoever has the job of overseeing the issue of a warrant should ensure that that is the case.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I support what is a common-sense amendment. While the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, and the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, remarked that they did not think it would do any damage to remove the phrase, I think that its removal would improve the Bill. I shall speak with caution because I am sitting in front of two noble friends who are both highly qualified legally.
  If the qualification of "belief" was removed, it might reduce the opportunity for challenge to decision making. If I were a person in receipt of a warrant and I knew that the legislation made it incumbent on an authority to do something if it believed that it needed to do it, I would then want to challenge the way in which the authority exercised its right to hold a belief. I would want to know by what process it decided to act on a belief.
  Difficulties are encountered as soon as "belief" is introduced into legal documents. To that end, my noble friend Lady Carnegy sought to assist the Government even further by suggesting that clarity would be improved by having a list. Perhaps the Government will respond by asking what the position would be if the judicial authorities changed and about issues of slippage of time in a list—I see the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, shaking his head. However, in this technological age one can update a list with a swift electronic communication. My noble friend has suggested a most helpful solution and I hope that the Government will be able to accept it.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: This has been an interesting and entertaining debate. I was grateful and pleased to note that, in moving his amendment, my noble friend Lord Wedderburn said that he did not favour enabling people to escape extradition. That was not just magnanimous on his part, I thought it was a
  GC 32
  testament of faith. Since the issue of belief has been raised here, such a testament of faith is important. We are grateful to our noble friends for tabling amendments which examine the issue of clarity in this part of the Bill.
  I must put the Committee on notice and say that the speaking note states "Resist". That is our starting point. However, I have listened carefully to the arguments and I was struck by the observation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy of Lour, about vagueness. We share her concern. For many this is a controversial piece of legislation. We want to see crispness of language and, along with all concerned, we seek a large measure of certainty.
  I want to spell out what the clause seeks to achieve. As is currently the position, NCIS or the Crown Office may certify an incoming warrant that it believes to have come from a judicial authority which has the function of issuing arrest warrants in that country. That is the current position, based on a belief. We expect incoming EU extradition requests to come from exactly the same sources and personnel. The amendment moved by my noble friend would provide that the UK authority has the power to issue a certificate if the warrant has come from a judicial authority with the appropriate function. His proposal would mean that no longer would there be any measure of how the decision is to be taken as to whether it was an appropriate authority.
  I can reassure my noble friend that we appreciate the reasoning behind the amendment. We would not want invalid warrants or warrants from unauthorised sources being certified in this country. That is exactly why this subsection is in Clause 2. There has to be some measure of how the decision on certification is to be made. Whether the authority issuing the warrant is the appropriate one, with the relevant functions, can be gauged only by the UK designated authority's belief in the matter. As I have said, that is the current position.
  To satisfy the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other noble Lords, there will be a central register of the appropriate competent authorities in each country. Therefore it will be possible for the UK authority to verify whether each warrant has come from the correct source. So the process of verification will be in place. Ultimately, however, the UK will have to believe justifiably that the warrant has been issued by the appropriate authority. The certificate will then be issued.
  Because of the points that have been made, I see no great harm in us at least going away and considering—
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Can my noble friend point to any other part of the Bill where similar words to those in question have been used?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not able to answer that question off the cuff. My noble friend has made a fair and reasonable point. However, I was about to say that while I think that, on balance, we have the wording right, I see no harm in taking away the point raised by this amendment and considering whether the issue of certainty can be given some further emphasis.

  GC 33
  I say that without prejudice; I am not making a rock-solid commitment to return with an amendment. However, the issue raised by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn is worth looking at further. I hope that he will be happy with that.
  I wish to make a final point of reassurance. The Government's aim, which has to be shared and collectively agreed, is that no inappropriate warrant can be certified in this country. Indeed, I believe that my noble friend moved his amendment in that spirit. If any doubts at all are raised about the authenticity of a warrant, of course the UK authority has all the powers it needs to ensure that no further action would be taken.
  I hope that I have been able to reassure the Committee with those comments. We shall consider further the issue raised by the amendment and check that we have got it right.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am most grateful for that reply. The Minister said that I made an entertaining case for the amendment. It always gives me enormous pleasure to provide entertainment for-my noble friends. I regard that as a compliment because it is rare that I am able to do so.
  My noble friend said that his brief stated "Resist". In view of his later remarks, I thought that perhaps he had misread the word and that in fact it was "Desist" from stubborn opposition to what is a sensible proposal. I hope that he can give us further information about Maria Teresa. I say that because the point is that a mistake could be made. Of course I believe that the Government will do all they can to ensure that, in practice, things work properly, but a mistake could be made. If the words are taken out, any mistake would invalidate the proceedings, which is how it should be.
  I am tremendously grateful to my noble friend for saying that he will take this away. I hope he will find that the balance is wrong and the words are taken out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charltonmoved Amendment No. 24:
  Page 2, line 40, after "warrants" insert "after a judicial decision"
  The noble Lord said: This is a small amendment which I suspect is less entertaining. It rests on a point referred to by my noble friend Lady Turner in Article 1 of the framework decision, which refers to a European arrest warrant as a judicial decision issued by a member state with a view to the arrest and surrender of a requested person.
  We have seen the need to amend the Bill to make it absolutely clear that a "judicial" authority is the source of the warrant. That notion is central. In paragraph 8 of its preamble, the framework decision speaks of the need for "sufficient controls":
  "which means that a judicial authority of the Member State where the requested person has been arrested will have to take the decision on his or her surrender".
  GC 34
  As we understand it, a judicial authority must, if it is a court, act judicially. If it were found that a particular court had acceded to requests without a judicial examination of the case, I suggest that the court's action would not fall within the spirit of what we intend. Therefore, we should make it clear—as it is in Article 1 of the framework decision— that it is not just a matter of a judicial authority, but of a judicial authority exercising a procedure which amounts to a judicial decision.
  A case in point might be that a body which was a judicial authority acted as a matter of course—as a matter of formality—on the request of a public prosecutor. If that could be shown—at least beyond reasonable doubt—I apprehend that such procedure would fall outwith the spirit of what the Government intend. The Government do not, as I understand it, intend that a public prosecutor should just he able to demand of someone who is on the list of designated judicial authorities that an arrest warrant be issued. If that is so, perhaps we should make that understanding clear in the Bill; namely, that this is a judicial authority—and, as my noble friend the Minister mentioned, information as to who the authorities are will be sent by the other state—and that that judicial authority must be acting, as it normally would, in terms of a procedure which can be said to be a judicial decision.
  It is not impossible. I give Ministers notice that I have been doing as much work as I can, in such languages as I can muster, on the new penal code in Estonia. My noble friend finds that amusing. It is not irrelevant. Estonia is a long way away—a land of which we know little, to employ a famous phrase—but, nevertheless, the new penal code for 2002 appears to have some very interesting features. I imagine that Ministers will not object if we refer occasionally to territories that are about to become members of the European Union. Obviously, they will be very relevant; they are bound to come in to Part 1. it have not yet reached any conclusion on the matter. I merely give Ministers notice so that those who advise them can muster their even greater linguistic skills on this matter.
  There is a worry, and it has been suggested that what clearly appear to be judicial authorities act on the formality of something like a public prosecutor request. I ask my noble friend to consider making it clear in the Bill that that is not the intention. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): A Division has been announced, so the Grand Committee stands adjourned for 10 minutes.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.50 to 7 p.m.]
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I support my noble friend. My name stands to Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. Amendment No. 24 has been moved and Amendment No. 25 has been spoken to. As I understand the framework directive, the processes outlined in the Bill have to be, as it were, started by a

  GC 35
  judicial decision. If so, it seems desirable that this should be unambiguously stated in the appropriate clauses. That is why I put my name to these amendments. I hope the Government will accept the case made by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn with his usual erudition and more briefly by myself.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I worry about the words "after a judicial decision" because I am not convinced they are entirely required. On the other hand—and there is always another hand—why should they not be included? My noble friends have argued the case with impeccable logic and I cannot see why the Minister cannot also take this issue away to reconsider. I do not think that the statute would suffer by the words "after a judicial decision".
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: The noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, has assisted the Committee by tabling amendments which try to add some clarity to the Bill. He has also assisted me by making me think sideways as to some of the other implications of the clause. My sideways thinking is not directly relevant to his amendment. However, I shall utter it briefly so that it can perhaps be considered before we reach the Report stage, when I may bring forward an amendment around it.
  The Minister will recall that on the Crime (International Co-operation) Bill, we had some lengthy discussions about administrative proceedings in the European Union. We were given some definitions of what "administrative proceedings" could be. It seemed that they were the same as judicial proceedings. Obviously, I need to consider whether the Bill as currently drafted may cover all types of decisions—perhaps I may call them that—taken in other EU jurisdictions, both now and in the future when the Bill is perhaps amended by additional and other offences. That was simply an observation.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, for giving my brain a bit of a thump to kick-start it.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is worth putting on the record my gratitude for the amendment in the sense that we want to have clarification and we are not at all unhappy about providing that.
  These amendments relate to the "process"—that is the important matter—for issuing European arrest warrants in other countries. The Bill provides that the UK's designated authority, NCIS or the Crown Office, must certify that any incoming warrants come from a bona fide source and that they contain all the necessary information.
  With regard to the source, the designated authority must be satisfied that the issuing authority in the requesting state is a judicial authority, which has the function of issuing arrest warrants in the country
  GC 36
  concerned. The "designated authority" here must be satisfied that the judicial authority has the function of issuing arrest warrants.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: I thank my noble friend for giving way. Why not in any event include the words "after a judicial decision"?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that that would necessarily add greater clarity. Let me proceed with the points.
  As I said in response to the earlier debate, there will be a central register in which the approved issuing authorities in each country will be listed so that it will not be unduly difficult for the UK designated authority to carry out the necessary checks. I should also make it clear that, as I said earlier, we expect to receive incoming European extradition requests from exactly the same people as we get them from at the moment. We currently receive requests from a wide range of judges and magistrates across the European Union, and we see absolutely no reason why that should change.
  Amendment No. 24 would provide that the decision to issue a warrant has to be a "judicial decision". I have to confess that I am not wholly clear what is meant by that. As I have already explained, all warrants will have to be issued by a judicial authority. I think that it is reasonable to argue that any decision taken on a matter of law or procedure by a person holding a judicial office—such as a judge or magistrate—is a judicial decision. So I cannot see what the amendments would add to the Bill.
  I certainly hope that my noble friend is not suggesting that in order to qualify as a "judicial decision" the decision to issue a warrant should be taken in court with some kind of formal procedure or hearing. That may be what my noble friend and his supporters want, but that is not how we do things in the United Kingdom. It is not our practice. An arrest warrant can be issued, on application from the police, by a justice of the peace. Clearly the justice needs to be convinced that the arrest would be justified, but he does not have to hold any kind of formal hearing for that purpose. Nor does that process need to happen in court. After all, a justice can sign an arrest warrant at home in his pyjamas if necessary, and there have been occasions when that has happened.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I wonder whether the Minister would like me to intervene now in order to assist. I sat as a magistrate for 13 years. I can assure him, without trying to be flippant in any way, that I never once signed an arrest warrant in a state of undress or in any relaxed manner. The matter is taken very seriously by justices in this country. What we are trying to elicit from the Government is a statement as to whether the matter is taken seriously in other countries. I cannot speak for other members of the judiciary, but the lay judiciary are given not only very

  GC 37
  strict training but a very strict set of rules by which they have to abide before doing something as serious as issue a warrant.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: We too take these matters very seriously. I was not attempting to be flippant in any way. I was merely trying to suggest that although these matters are dealt with without the formal trappings of a court—it is in no sense a full hearing—they are taken very seriously indeed. I am sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, and other justices take every warrant application very seriously and that they give them very careful consideration. That is exactly what we expect to happen outwith our own jurisdiction. However, we see no need to impose requirements on foreign judicial authorities that we do not impose on our own judicial authorities. We expect that the process will be similar to that in the United Kingdom and that it will be of similar veracity.
  Lord Stoddart of Swindon: I have been listening to the Minister and to the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay. I have never been a magistrate, but my wife has. Therefore, I know how carefully these matters are dealt with. The process may be done in someone's sitting room or dining room, but if the individual is a magistrate, he or she is a judicial officer and the process is a judicial process. The fact that it does not take place in a court room is neither here nor there—it is a judicial process. What the noble Baroness and my noble friends are concerned about is that in other countries it need not be a judicial process—it may be an administrative process. I hope that my noble friend agrees with what I am saying. In some countries it may very well be that the exercise of a warrant does not happen through a judicial process but through an administrative process. I am worried about that. I am worried that other countries' systems are not as good as ours. I think that that is what the amendment seeks to achieve.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: In a sense I think that the noble Lord helps our argument. It is absolutely correct that, regardless of the location, as I said at the outset, we expect the judicial process to be very similar to ours and as robust as ours. It should be considered in exactly the same way. That is why we will be clear and ensure clarity as to what constitutes a judicial authority. The judicial authorities will be properly listed.
  As I said, we do not see the need to impose requirements on foreign judicial authorities that we do not impose on our own judicial authorities. Yes, it will be a judicial process in the sense that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, understands, but that process will be similar to ours. We expect it to operate very similarly to ours.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I have a feeling that entertainment gets us some way, but that what one noble Lord has called impeccable logic does not get us quite as far. I have to preface what I want to say with an expression of astonishment at my noble friend the Minister's description of magistrates' activity. I should
  GC 38
  have thought that, in all the processes that we have and are likely to have under this legislation and under previous extradition law, when judicial bodies sit, they go through a judicial process to reach a judicial decision. I think that the Minister, on reflection, would not wish to controvert that. I therefore press this amendment very hard upon the Government. I do so not because I have views on what a particular foreign judicial body does at the moment but because of what the Bill would allow. That is what we are concerned with.
  The Bill as drafted would allow for a case in which a judicial authority on the list—or even not on the list, in a sense, although that is not questionable—on which the Minister relies acts, as a formality, on the request of some administrative or other state body or officer. That would be a judicial authority because it is on the list, but it is not exercising a judicial process in coming to a judicial decision. My noble friend the Minister confuses the process and source. The Bill now clearly states—we are gradually getting it right—the source: it must be a judicial authority. We get to know which is which—Maria Teresa will be on the list—but it does not say anything about what has to happen.
  There might just be a case where the public prosecutor has established such a close connection with the judicial authority that the judicial authority will do more or less what he wants. I do not believe that it is our intention to enact that. I especially do not believe it because it would controvert what the framework decision says. As my noble friend has pointed out, the framework decision says that the European arrest warrant is,
  "a judicial decision issued by a Member State with a view to the arrest and surrender".
  What is wrong with that?
  I have no objection to the Government remarking, as they have in previous debates in another place and in your Lordships' House, about gold-plating the framework decision. However, I have some objection to copper-plating the framework decision such that the Government can engrave into it an inferior procedure to that in the framework decision.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: I wonder whether the noble Lord agrees with me that there may be some confusion in the Government's mind arising out of what is meant by a judicial decision. It would be understandable, as it is a linguistic problem. The noble Lord is talking about an adjudication—an action by a judicial authority resulting in an adjudication, having weighed the pros and cons of whatever issue was put before it. Perhaps the noble Lord would agree that it might be worth suggesting to the Minister that the words "an adjudication", "by virtue of an adjudication" or "after an adjudication" might be an alternative way of expressing the correction that the noble Lord is keen on.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, but as a matter of fact I would not accept that. There are problems about the meaning

  GC 39
  of "judicial process" in our partner countries in Europe. I know only a little about the Italian system, but I have no doubt that my Italian friends would understand the notion of coming to a judicial decision, which means at least considering the issues and coming to a decision impartially. Wording such as "a judicial process" might have its own problems.
  I hesitate to refer to the academic literature, of which I am sure that the Government's advisers are well apprised. However, there is a long and honourable history to the discussions of what is and what is not a judicial process and a judicial decision. I am particularly struck that that causes no problem with our European partners. That is why they put "judicial decision" in the framework decision. It is understood that the body must consider the issues and come to a decision for itself, not merely at the request of some other organ of the state authority. That is what is at stake. If such a case arose, the Bill would allow that to cause someone's liberty to disappear, and he would end up abroad in a foreign gaol.
  I do not understand the Government on this issue. If they have a better phrase—a better hole to go to—by all means let them go there. Before doing what I inevitably have to, in an executing manner in this Grand Committee, I urge the Minister to think again about the matter. There could be a case tomorrow in which someone is whisked off, with the British court being able to do nothing about it, because of what the Minister has put in his Bill, with no judicial process or decision having been undertaken abroad. All I can say is that I hope the Minister will return on Report with further thoughts on the matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 25 not moved.]
  Baroness Anelay of St Johnsmoved Amendment No. 26:
  Page 2, line 45, leave out subsections (9) and (10) and insert
  "(9) The designated authority is the National Criminal Intelligence Service in England and in Scotland the Crown Office.
  (10) For the purposes of subsection (9), further designated authorities can be designated if necessary."
  The noble Baroness said: In moving the amendment, I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 27 and 29. I note that Amendment No. 28, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, is grouped with these.
  The amendments focus on the authorities in the UK that are designated to receive Part I warrants and certify them if they are satisfied that the conditions in subsections (7) and (8) have been met. That is clearly a vital role.
  We have just had a long and fruitful discussion on the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, on how we can be satisfied that the issuing authority in the category 1 country is a bona fide judicial authority acting in a judicial way and making a judicial decision. The designated authority in this country has the crucial role of making the decision, checking the authenticity of the Part 1
  GC 40
  warrant and signifying approval by certificating the warrant, thereby allowing the extradition request to proceed to the next stage in the process. Yet we are not told in subsection (9) what authorities in the UK are to undertake this role, only that they will be designated by Order in Council. Subsection (10) sheds little more light, merely telling us that there may be more than one authority and that there may be different authorities for different parts of the UK.
  I believe that the two subsections are unnecessarily obscure. Our amendments give two alternative versions, for clarity. Amendment No. 27, along with Amendment No. 29, which is consequential on it, would allow the authority to certify Part 1 warrants to reside in the Secretary of State alone. I set out under a previous amendment the arguments which we believe support the involvement of the Secretary of State in each and every extradition request. The amendments would not have to cause the delays which currently proceed. Other changes under the Bill make sure that the process for a Part 2 request will be cleared in six months. Moreover, the number of extradition requests is not considerable—usually no more than 100 a year and often a great deal less.
  Under the EAW, we lose the dual criminality and prima facie requirements. In that way, we lose the safeguard of the Secretary of State's ultimate discretion in taking the decision. The Secretary of State is still the authority in Part 2, so I believe that our amendment is robust enough to withstand criticism, as it seeks to put a politician in ultimate control of a judicial decision. That may not be quite the case—but if it is good enough for Part 2 it should he good enough for Part 1.
  I thought that the Government might object to the Secretary of State being there, but I tabled the alternative amendment so that we could have a full debate in Committee. When I looked at the Explanatory Notes, I saw that the Government themselves had provided an explanation. The notes state:
  "The authority for the UK is intended to be the National Criminal Intelligence Service and, additionally in Scotland only, the Crown Office".
  Having seen that in the notes, I pulled it out and put it into my amendment.
  Subject to what the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, might be about to say, I support Amendment No. 28, which would insist that any designation of the appropriate authority through Orders in Council be done only by the affirmative procedure. That seems a welcome development.
  The Scottish Law Society has approached us, but it is more appropriate that I leave any comments on Scotland to my noble friend Lady Carnegy. I beg to move.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Amendment No. 28 has been grouped with the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, which is perhaps another example why one should get up early in the morning and have a look at the draft groupings. I was prevented from getting to the House in time to do so.

  GC 41
  I considered what the Minister said about affirmative resolutions on the first day of the Committee proceedings, and wondered whether his logic should lead him to look favourably on the notion of affirmative resolutions in this part of the Bill—and, if not, why not. I hope for a favourable reply.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I would like some clarification. As I understand the matter, the designated authority is merely designated by Order in Council. Exactly how wide could that designation range? Who or what are the possible bodies that could be included? To put it at its strongest, is there anything that would stop Europol being designated, or possibly the European Union itself? That ties in with Amendment No. 10, which I moved earlier. What exactly is on offer here?
  Lord Filkin: Again, these amendments are concerned with important issues—the receipt of incoming requests in Part 1 cases. Clearly, in any extradition case we need to be sure that an incoming request has come from a bona fide source before any action is taken on it. For that reason, the Bill creates a role for a designated authority to check that the warrant has indeed come from a recognised source in the requesting state and that it contains all the required information. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, correctly said in relation to the Explanatory Notes, our intention is that NCIS should be the UK's main designated authority, with the Crown Office additionally performing the role in Scotland.
  It makes good sense for NCIS to perform that role as it will be the home of the UK's Schengen bureau and we expect most requests to be transmitted by the secure Schengen system. NCIS will therefore be well placed to certify that the request has come from a bona fide source.
  Similarly, it is entirely appropriate for the Crown Office to perform that role in Scotland, providing administrative assistance to the judiciary north of the Border. 'Designating an additional authority for Scotland will allow swifter transmission of the relevant warrant where it is known that, for example, the individual being sought is actually in Scotland.
  That being so, I do not have any great problem of principle with Amendment No. 26, which seeks to put on the face of the Bill the requirement that those two bodies will perform that role, because that is our intention. My difficulty is one of practicality. By being that specific on the face of the Bill, we would limit our ability to cope with changes in the future. What would happen if either NCIS or the Crown Office were to be abolished in the future or changed their name? What would happen if either of them merged with another body or split into two or more separate bodies? In each of those cases, primary legislation would be required to revoke the status of NCIS or the Crown Office as a designated authority. We have no intention of doing so. Having said that, who knows what may be needed to be done in the future? The Bill is therefore drafted in such a way as to allow for any change in structure
  GC 42
  or any renaming that may occur in the coming years. I do not believe that we should jettison that flexibility, which is neither sinister nor malign.
  As I have sought to explain, the role of the designated authority is essentially an administrative one, important though that is. I cannot see any need to make the orders which will designate the bodies concerned subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, as suggested by the amendment standing in the names of my noble friends Lord Wedderburn and Lady Turner. The Delegated Powers Committee, which examined the Bill carefully, did not consider that that would be necessary and I do not believe that it would be appropriate to set such a high level of scrutiny for a procedure such as that.
  Amendments Nos. 27 and 28, from the Official Opposition, seek to make the Secretary of State responsible for certifying an incoming Part 1 request. As the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, said, we discussed those issues earlier in Committee. Members of the Committee are well aware that doing that would undermine Part 1 because the extradition laws are outdated and in need of urgent reform. The intent is to simplify and make appropriate expedition for the handling of requests from all the UK's extradition partners. As I sought to explain previously, there really is no case to try to re-involve Ministers in what should be an entirely administrative and judicial process.
  As I explained, the role of the designated authority is to confirm the source of the request and to check that it has been properly filled in and that all the relevant necessary information, as is specified in the Bill, has been supplied.
  Lord Clinton-Davis: Amendment No. 28 is not in the name of the Official Opposition. The Minister said that but he was wrong—unless, of course, he refers to my noble friend Lord Wedderburn as the Official Opposition.
  Lord Filkin: I stand corrected. The noble Lord is quite right. My noble friend is most certainly not the Official Opposition.
  Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: Or even the unofficial Opposition.
  Lord Filkin: I refrain from making another comment.
  As I was saying, NCIS is well qualified to perform the role that I described because it is likely to have good links with its issuing counterparts across Europe and can easily send back warrants which are incomplete or incorrect. All of that is also true of the Crown Office in Scotland.
  That is the extent of the role of the certifying authority—checking that the request contains all the necessary information and certifying that it comes from an appropriate source. It is entirely appropriate that that should be an administrative function that is performed by an administrative body. That involves the thrust of the question raised by my noble friend Lord Wedderburn; that is, why we see a distinction

  GC 43
  between that and the issue involving adding countries into Part 1, on which we gave ground earlier in the Bill. That appeared to us to involve a different level of controversy, importance and sensitivity. We were pleased to respond to the comments of Members of the Committee and the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee in that regard.
  I cannot see what added value Ministers could bring other than adding a layer of delay to the whole process. I hope therefore that the amendment will be withdrawn.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: Would the Minister mind answering the question I put to him? How wide could this go? Who else might be designated? Is a limit to be set? After all, the designated authority is fairly crucial. Nothing will happen unless it decides that it has received an appropriate warrant. I do not think that it is sufficient excuse to say simply that the whole thing is entirely automatic and so it does not matter. Who else might be designated?
  Lord Filkin: I find it hard to see how Europol could be designated because it would not have the capacity to fulfil the functions required by the designated authority. I think that was one of the examples cited by the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch. Under the Bill any body could be designated subject to the approval of Parliament but, as I have indicated, we intend to designate only NCIS and the Crown Office.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: The Minister dismissed rather summarily the argument put by my noble friend that the Secretary of State should be the designated authority. Would he like to reconsider that? If, as I understand from what was said earlier, we are not expecting a great volume of such warrants and if they are intended to address serious crime, is not there a case for saying that the Secretary of State should be the designated authority, even if only to ensure conformity in what is required when accepting warrants in this country?
  I personally support the Bill to the extent that rightly and properly it helps to modernise the rules on extradition, but the Secretary of State had a vital role to play in that process because he had finally to approve the extradition of the individual concerned. Would it not perhaps demonstrate that the Government, while modernising the procedures, were not in any way diminishing needed protections if at some stage reference was made to the Secretary of State?
  Might it not mean that in fact he has to be the designating authority, as the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, pointed out, without whom the process does not start? There might be a case for saying that it should be the Secretary of State.
  Lord Filkin: It is with some regret that I cannot accede to the request of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, in this respect, because I have been aware that while
  GC 44
  probing the legislation is part of the Committee's work, he has nevertheless signalled his recognition of the importance of having in place an effective extradition to ensure that we can combat international crime. I respect that.
  I have little to add to what I have already said on this point. No doubt we shall return to these issues at later stages. I shall certainly reflect on whether there are better arguments, but in essence I have said that, in our view, the role of Ministers in this respect is superfluous and otiose. All it would do would be to add another element of process, thus adding to delay.
  I shall reflect on whether I can bring forward other arguments to persuade Members of the Committee at subsequent stages, but at this point I am not minded to change my view.
  Lord Mayhew of Twysden: Does the Minister agree that reassurance for my noble friend Lord Pearson in his proper anxiety appears to be found in page 1, line 13, in Clause 2(1), which states:
  "This section applies if the designated authority receives a Part 1 warrant in respect of a person"?
  It is hard to envisage how Europol could receive a Part 1 warrant, as, as the Explanatory Notes make clear, a Part 1 warrant must be issued within the requesting territory? I may be wrong, but that seems to be a reassurance.
  Lord Filkin: I always take at face value offers of assistance in my defence from any Member of the Committee. Having said that, I shall double check whether, as I suspect, that is the case and that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, is right, as on many other occasions.
  Lord Pearson of Rannoch: I am most grateful to my noble and learned friend and perfectly prepared to accept that Europol is off the pitch for the purpose of the relevant process. However, the Minister has not yet answered the question of how wide the designation could go. In the context of Amendment No. 10, I mentioned the European Union itself. I do not know. There are fears that many institutions beyond those that we are currently considering could be designated in future. That might be unacceptable.
  Lord Filkin: I am always cautious about saying that I shall reflect, because that is open to such gross misinterpretation that it can lead to disappointment. The commonsense answer is that I cannot see how any European Union institution, even if we wanted it to—which we certainly do not—could act to fulfil the functions meant to be fulfilled by the designated authority.
  Essentially, the designated authority is a body under the control of the UK Government—because it is our responsibility to administer that part of the Bill—that can receive incoming requests from other member states and, when it receives them, check that they meet terms and criteria set out in the relevant clause, to which we have already spoken—such as, do they meet the information tests? It therefore seems to me—I shall

  GC 45
  say not self-evident, but clear—that it must be a body under the control of the United Kingdom Government to fulfil those functions.
  I am extemporising on the wing from reflection. If there is any gap in what I say, I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, to clarify it; but that is what I believe to be the case.
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns: I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in the debate, which goes to the heart of the clause. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Pearson of Rannoch for raising the issue at the nub of the debate: how wide can the designation of bodies go? It is not even a case of who might be designated hut of who can be. What could be covered?
  The Minister stated today that the Government's intention is not to be too specific, but that, effectively, they want NCIS and the Crown Office to be covered but not named, on the basis that it is practical to leave the matter open, so that if those organisations were renamed—in another place, it was said specifically if NCIS were renamed—they could still be designated. But the Minister also said, "Who knows what needs to be done in future?" That is precisely what underlies my concern and is why I tabled the amendments.
  GC 46
  I shall reflect carefully before Report, but I am still not persuaded that the Government have the provision right in denying the Secretary of State a role. I was grateful for the contributions of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow and my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew in assisting the definition in the first amendment.
  In the Bill, the Government are giving up a series of safeguards, one of which I have addressed in the amendment. However, I put all those safeguards together. The Government seem to be knocking clown the pillars of safeguards one by one in the Bill, just as it appears that, in the draft constitution, they are knocking away the third pillar.
  I am not a Euro-sceptic— that may shock sonic of my colleagues, but I am certainly not—but I am sceptical about how Part 1 of the Bill meets our needs for extradition. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 27 to 29 not moved.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It may be convenient if the Committee adjourn until 18th June at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty minutes before eight o'clock.

  CPS: Pre-trial Witness Interviews
  CPS: Pre-trial Witness Interviews
  CPS: Early Legal Advice and Charging Pilot
  CPS: Early Legal Advice and Charging Pilot
  Maladministration Complaints
  Maladministration Complaints
  Azerbaijan and Armenia: Arms Embargo and UK Exports
  Azerbaijan and Armenia: Arms Embargo and UK Exports
  G8 Summit: Government's Objectives
  G8 Summit: Government's Objectives
  Olympics 2012: Safety and Security
  Olympics 2012: Safety and Security
  Fixed Penalty Notices: Disorder Offences
  Fixed Penalty Notices: Disorder Offences
  Communications Data
  Communications Data
  Criminal Convictions: Humberside
  Criminal Convictions: Humberside
  Firearms: Record-keeping and Marking
  Firearms: Record-keeping and Marking
  Firearms Amnesty
  Firearms Amnesty
  Extradition Bill: Police Powers Draft Code of Practice
  Extradition Bill: Police Powers Draft Code of Practice
  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
  Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002
  Domiciliary Oxygen Services
  Domiciliary Oxygen Services
  NHS: Management Costs Exclusions
  NHS: Management Costs Exclusions
  Beta Interferon Risk-sharing Scheme for multiple Sclerosis
  Beta Interferon Risk-sharing Scheme for multiple Sclerosis
  Non-invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation: Indemnity Insurance for Nurses
  Non-invasive Positive Pressure Ventilation: Indemnity Insurance for Nurses
  Technetium-99: Discharge into Irish Sea
  Technetium-99: Discharge into Irish Sea
  Badgers: Krebs Trials
  Badgers: Krebs Trials
  Abattoirs
  Abattoirs
  Fallen Stock
  Fallen Stock
  Defra: Responses to Queries about Fallen Stock
  Defra: Responses to Queries about Fallen Stock