Sitting of 16 June 2003

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

    Criminal Justice
    Mr. Graham Allen: When he next plans to visit the council estates of Nottingham, North to explain Government policy on the criminal justice system; and if he will make a statement. [119011]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Paul Goggins): The Home Secretary visited Nottingham on 11 April. He attended a meeting on gun crime and visited local community projects. He has no plans to visit Nottingham, North in the near future.
    Mr. Allen: I welcome my hon. Friend to his first Question Time. I note that he is one of the most experienced Ministers on the Front Bench and I wish him and his colleagues well in their new positions—and, indeed, those who have their old positions.
    2
    The ministerial team in the Home Department and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary have made heroic efforts to amend the criminal justice system to make it more relevant to today's circumstances. However, will my hon. Friend re-examine the possibility of trying to reconnect the criminal justice system more with those who pay for it, by which I mean people living on the estates in our constituencies, many of whom feel disengaged from it? Will my hon. Friend reflect on how best to put that right? Could he run a pilot scheme, for example, to—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too long. I call the Minister.
    Paul Goggins: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes, and, in saying that, I am sure that I speak not just for myself but for other members of the Front-Bench team.
    It is important to understand that criminal justice policy and legislation are not for the House alone; they must go out right across estates such as those in my hon. Friend's constituency. In Nottinghamshire, as elsewhere throughout the country, we now have local criminal justice boards whose job it is to ensure that these policies are better communicated to build public confidence in the criminal justice system. The local criminal justice boards have to produce an annual report and can also publish newsletters and other forms of communication. I am sure that he will be pleased to know that CJS Online includes a page dedicated to the local board in his area.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister encourage the Home Secretary to go to Nottingham, North, whose electors doubtless wish to be reassured that the Minister responsible for the criminal justice system is based in this House, has

    3
    political legitimacy by election and does not owe his present position to the fact that he is a friend of the Prime Minister?
    Paul Goggins: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will take every opportunity to visit Nottingham, but when he goes there, or anywhere else in the country, it will be abundantly clear that he, as Home Secretary, is in charge of criminal justice policy.
    Mr. Oliver Letwin: I, too, welcome the new Minister—and, indeed, the other new Ministers—to the Dispatch Box. We hope to add considerably to their work load.
    I am sorry that the Home Secretary will not visit Nottingham's council estates in the near future. When he eventually does so, will he explain to the people living there the difference between the Prime Minister's early pledge that he would
    "halve the time from arrest to sentencing"
    for young offenders, and the Government's press release of June this year in which they claim to meet the pledge only by redefining it as
    "to halve the time it takes to get persistent young offenders into court from the time they were arrested"?
    Does the Minister believe that the people of Nottingham cannot spot the difference between getting young people into court and getting them convicted?
    Paul Goggins: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his good wishes and I can reassure him that we kept the pledge that we made. I took an early look into the problem: when we took office in 1997, it was 142 days, whereas it is now consistently 71 days or fewer.
    Mr. Letwin: Oh yes, the "it" has been kept, but it has changed. Getting people into court is not the same as getting them convicted. If it were, the Home Secretary's vast legislative energies would be entirely wasted.
    When the Minister eventually visits Nottingham, will he also tell people living on the council estates why he is today quietly bringing to a Committee Upstairs a regulation that will abolish the statutory time limits for youth justice that the Government themselves introduced in 1999? Will he explain to the people of Nottingham why on 14 May 1998, the Minister's predecessor, the then Under-Secretary, said that abolishing those regulations would
    "undermine our wish to administer justice expeditiously, particularly for young offenders"?—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 14 May 1998; c. 399.]
    Why have the Government been pretending, as the Minister just has, that they have fulfilled the Prime Minister's pledge when, in reality, the failure to fulfil it is so abject that they are now repealing the legislation that sought to implement it in the first place? Will the Minister explain to the people of Nottingham why the Government have descended to the level of fiddling their own pledges?
    Paul Goggins: May I explain to the right hon. Gentleman that the pledge and the time limits are two entirely different but complementary objectives? The pledge that he read out from the pledge card has been kept, and we have reflected on the need for time limits.
    4
    The fact that we are removing statutory time limits does not remove the urgency of timeliness within the criminal justice system.

    Drugs Policy
    John Barrett: What discussions he has had with the Scottish Justice Minister regarding the co-ordination of UK drugs policy. [119012]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth) last met the Scottish Deputy Justice Minister, Hugh Henry MSP, at the British-Irish Council meeting on 7 February. A programme of drug-related activities was agreed at that meeting to improve co-operation between the UK Government and the devolved Administrations and to share experiences and good practice.
    John Barrett: I congratulate the Minister on her new appointment. Are there any plans to work with the new Justice Minister to reduce the amount of drugs entering the country, both north and south of the border? What message can she send to my constituents to prove that everything that can be done is being done?
    Caroline Flint: The Scottish Executive are also represented on a number of cross-Government official groups and committees and there is strong liaison north and south of the border. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government and the Scottish Executive take the abuse of drugs, and the crime that emanates from it, very seriously. It is a major priority for the Government.
    David Cairns: Given that 90 per cent. of the heroin on the streets of Scotland—and on the streets of Doncaster—originates from poppies grown in Afghanistan, may I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the recent report from United Nations inspectors, which says that this year's poppy harvest is likely to be a record bumper crop? Can she give me an assurance that every step will be taken to ensure that that poppy harvest does not become the raw opium that becomes heroin on the streets of Scotland and Doncaster, leading to devastation for her constituents and mine?
    Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend raises an important matter. We need to deal with the source from which drugs come, and I am pleased to inform him that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary met the Afghan President only last week. Some £150 million of UK money is being provided to tackle the problem. I know that my hon. Friend works hard on the issue and I will ensure that his comments are drawn to the attention of the appropriate Ministers.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: I welcome the Minister to her new role. Is she aware that one of the major ways to address the drugs problem north and south of the border is by a massive increase in rehabilitation facilities? Will she commit to learning the lessons from experience in both England and Scotland

    5
    through consultation? That obviously did not happen on Thursday when the post of Secretary of State for Scotland was first abolished, and then reinstated.
    Caroline Flint: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome. What happened last week is not relevant. The Home Secretary has overall responsibility for the UK strategy on drugs and the Scottish Executive have responsibility for implementing strategies and deciding priorities in Scotland. There is no change there, regardless of changes to the position of the Secretary of State for Scotland. Treatment is very important, and we recognise that north and south of the border. We know that we have to do more in that area, but we are providing resources on a massive scale to ensure that people get the treatment that they need, according to their needs and when they need it.
    Mr. Tom Harris: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box. Does she agree that the recovery of drug dealers' assets is an important weapon in the fight against the drug trade? What mechanisms exist to ensure co-operation between the Assets Recovery Agency in England and Wales and the Crown Office, which is responsible for asset recovery in Scotland? Does she agree that an equally stringent regime on both sides of the border is necessary to prevent drug dealers from moving around to try to take advantage of an apparently more lenient regime?
    Caroline Flint: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If we are going to make progress, it is essential to have co-operation between all the agencies involved. I am only three days into my job, but it will be an issue that I will seek to look at. I welcome any representations from Members of Parliament or their constituents on how the matter is dealt with, locally, regionally and nationally.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: I congratulate the Minister on her appointment and welcome her to the Dispatch Box. When she considers the Home Office's responsibilities for drug strategy, will she bear in mind the great anger in all parts of the country—not only Scotland—at the fact that British taxpayers' money is used to purchase and supply hard drugs to prisoners in Scottish prisons? Will she also bear in mind the fact that anti-drugs campaigners are very angry about the messages given on the Home Office's Talk to Frank website, which appear to provide excuses for drug taking rather than to steer children away from drugs?
    Caroline Flint: We do not provide any excuse for drug taking. I will look into the matter that the hon. Gentleman raises in relation to prisons, but I am afraid that I do not have the information to hand. We take the situation very seriously, and our priority is to tackle hard drugs—class A drugs—because they cause the most harm to individuals and provoke the most crime.

    Mersey Tunnels Police Force
    Mr. Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on progress in the Department's investigation into the Mersey Tunnels police force. [119013]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): The Merseyside passenger transport authority, Merseytravel, which is primarily responsible for the Mersey Tunnels police and for the safe operation of the tunnels, is seeking judicial review of the coroner's report and the report by the Police Complaints Authority into the deaths of Darren Franey and Scott Veach. My officials are working closely with the Department for Transport to ensure that the Mersey tunnels are policed in a professional and effective manner, but it would be sensible to await the outcome of the legal proceedings before determining the way forward.
    Mr. Chapman: While I have reservations about a police force reporting to what I regard as an unaccountable body—Merseytravel—and about Merseytravel's using public funds to pursue judicial review against what I regard as well-intentioned comments by the coroner, is it not time to have a thorough look at all the quasi-independent, non-territorial police forces, which have a tendency to become fiefdoms without common standards or automatic recourse to the Police Complaints Authority? Is it not time that we considered whether they might be brought into the general policing effort and the regular constabularies? For example, do we really need police forces for separate markets?
    Ms Blears: My hon. Friend raises some important points. The non-Home Office constabularies perform a range of duties mainly confined to the policing of private property. I understand his concern that those forces should meet the same training, ethical and professional skills standards as the rest of the police force. I am happy to reassure him that we are working with the Department for Transport on the British Transport police, with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on the parks police, and with the Department of Trade and Industry on the atomic energy police. We are making sure that we get the same standards across the police. Joined-up, effective policing is our top priority.

    Policing (London)
    Clive Efford: What assessment he has made of the impact on local police forces of the extraction of police officers for security in central London. [119014]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): May I first, for myself and on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration, welcome the rest of our Front-Bench team? I also wish my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins)—the only other male in the team—a very happy 50th birthday
    The day-to-day deployment of the service is in the hands of the commissioner. We recognise that there is a real issue concerning the deployment of staff to counter potential terrorist acts. That is why we have allocated £62 million this year, and 300 community support

    7
    officers have been specifically deployed so that their work and surveillance can complement that of the police.
    Clive Efford: I appreciate that it is difficult to address heightened security in central London. However, the abstraction of officers from local police forces is having a debilitating effect on their strategies to deal with antisocial behaviour and other crimes in our communities. The people of Eltham and Plumstead deserve as much security in their homes and communities as do those in central London. In approaching this issue in future, might it be possible to scrutinise the abstraction of officers to ensure that they are taken only for essential services, because their abstraction is having a damaging effect locally?
    Mr. Blunkett: In spite of the additional resources that I have just mentioned, the deployment of community support officers and the additional 2,000 officers in the Metropolitan police over the 18 months to last September, there is undoubtedly a problem. I raised that problem with the Met commissioner last week, and the police are monitoring the situation and developing graphs showing the incidence of street crimes, burglary, vehicle crime and crime in other targeted areas in relation to the number of officers available.
    In the boroughs, an average of eight or nine officers are being taken out each week for the present surveillance in central London. The commissioner and I believe that we need to examine the situation further and to ensure that complementary work is done by those examining the danger of terrorism and those undertaking normal day-to-day duties. I am keen to reassure my hon. Friend that we are on top of the situation and are demonstrating that more police, more visible police and more back-up from community support officers make a difference, but that we must make that difference not only in central London, where crime has dropped dramatically, but in boroughs such as my hon. Friend's.
    Mr. John Horam: I am glad that the Secretary of State recognises that there is a problem. Is he aware that it is persistent in the London borough of Bromley and that it was made worse recently when we learned that the number of additional police officers we were expecting this year has been halved due to what is called a funding crisis in the Metropolitan police? Is he aware of that funding crisis, and what can he tell the House about it?
    Mr. Blunkett: One person's crisis is another person's opportunity: the opportunity to employ 1,200 extra police this coming year and the opportunity to employ 500 additional community support officers—a large number. In the mid-1990s, in the days when the Opposition were starting the process of running down the police force, the crisis was a reality because fewer police meant a crisis on the streets. If more police, more CSOs and more visibility is a crisis, the word has taken on an entirely different meaning.
    Mr. Nicholas Soames: Is the Home Secretary aware that the extraction of police from other local forces seriously affects Sussex police, who continue
    8
    to lose high-grade and experienced officers to the Met through its predatory approach? Will he turn his attention to the fact that, although that may be good for the Met, it is very bad for Sussex police?
    Mr. Blunkett: Just three years ago, the drain away from the Metropolitan police was reaching dangerous levels. The reversal of that has of course placed strain on forces immediately outside London, which is why now, and through our continuing conversations with chief constables, we are doing everything possible to achieve a balance by appropriate measures and rewards, including housing, for the most affected authorities.
    Mr. James Paice: I join in the Home Secretary's welcome to his team, and especially in his birthday greetings to the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins). If the hon. Gentleman does not yet look his age, doing that job he soon will.
    Do not the figures show clearly that, as hon. Members on both sides of the House have said, removing police officers from one area to deal with problems in another simply creates a vacuum for crime? Extraction as routine practice rather than in dire emergency is merely a measure of the fact that not enough police officers are available; so does the Secretary of State accept, as his speech last week appeared to, our proposals and policies for dedicated neighbourhood policing, with specific career and accountability structures to ensure that the police really are where our constituents expect to see them—on the streets?
    Mr. Blunkett: After 11 September 2001, it was inevitable that there would be extraction; there had to be, in order to redeploy to meet a particular problem. That was stepped up again to meet people's fears of reaction to the conflict in Iraq. I have already demonstrated that the commissioner and I are keen to take a further look at the matter and to ensure that the improvement in inner London has not been made to the detriment of those in the outer boroughs.
    I can do nothing other than accept the hon. Gentleman's strictures on neighbourhood policing, because, on 5 December 2001, I published a White Paper that spelt out clearly that that was the Government's objective. We have been gratified to learn both from the commissioner and from chief constables that there is recognition that the switch away from neighbourhood and community policing a decade ago was a mistake.

    Active Citizenship
    Mr. Piara S. Khabra: What plans he has to promote community engagement and active citizenship. [119015]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): Last week, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary published a comprehensive statement on civic renewal. It is fundamentally about unlocking the power and potential of local communities and their citizens, enabling active citizens to provide solutions to their own problems. We are bringing the civic renewal agenda into everything we do in the Home Office, whether criminal justice reform,

    9
    policing or the development of assets in the community. Community engagement and active citizenship are key to a healthy society and crucial to delivering the Government's objectives.
    Mr. Khabra: I thank my hon. Friend for that response and congratulate her and my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on their appointments to the Front Bench.
    What plans does the Home Office have to ensure that those efforts to engage the community in citizenship will reach out to the ethnic minority communities, too? What contacts will my hon. Friend make with other Departments to ensure that that is the case?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I suspect that one reason why I have been appointed to this role is absolutely to do that, because I will have responsibility for volunteering and citizenship activity and for racial equality. I really believe that making those contacts with communities and enabling other Departments to ensure that they engage communities and that the race equality aspects of their policies are effective will be key in delivering the responsibilities that the Home Secretary has given me.
    Mr. David Cameron: I congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment. Does she agree that there is probably no better way to be an active citizen than to become a special constable? As a Thames valley Member herself, will she explain why she thinks that the number of special constables has fallen by so much and what the Government will do to try to reverse the trend?
    Fiona Mactaggart: The hon. Gentleman is right that special constables form a very important part of civic engagement, and I am pleased to note that many special constables in my area have taken up full-time employment with the police, as we are increasing police recruitment. I suspect that the number of special constables has fallen because many of them have been able to take on professional responsibilities and use their experience as specials to enable them to become professional police officers. I hope that more people will take that route into serving our communities.
    Angela Eagle: May I offer my warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend on her promotion to the Front Bench? Does she agree that active citizenship can flourish only in an atmosphere where bigotry and hatred are banished and unacceptable? To that end, does she agree that we still have much to do in relation to equality law and updating our anti-discrimination legislation to ensure that all our citizens can be free from the horror of being discriminated against because of their beliefs, colour, gender, age or sexual orientation? Will she support further Government action to provide protections in those important areas?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my hon. Friend for her generous remarks. I agree that we have to work to free our society from bigotry and the way in which bigotry and prejudice fuel attacks and diminish people's rights. Part of the way to do that is through legislation, but there is more to be done by challenging attitudes, engaging communities and so on. I hope that we will go
    10
    forward on both those fronts to deliver an effective way to engage people properly and to diminish the bigotry and prejudice that blight our communities.
    Dr. Vincent Cable: Does the Minister agree that nothing is more important to community engagement and active citizenship than schools and voluntary organisations working with young people? Can she explain why—after a year's disruption caused by the delays and incompetence of the Criminal Records Bureau and the appalling company, Capita—those organisations are now faced with a doubling of charges?
    Fiona Mactaggart: I understand that there has been no doubling of charges for volunteer checks or any charge for checking on volunteers. If I am wrong about that in any way—I am new to these responsibilities—I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. Of course, there are expensive charges for professional staff, and that affects voluntary organisations, but it is important that we protect people effectively. It is also important that we do not inhibit people from volunteering because of the cost of checking criminal records.

    Knives
    Hugh Bayley: If he will make a statement on what action the Government are taking to deter the use of knives in street crime, with special reference to knife-point robbery. [119016]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint): It is important to deter the use of knives and other offensive weapons in any type of crime, and the Government do so by providing legislation and police powers to prevent the possession or use of knives and other offensive weapons. For instance, it is an offence for any person to have an offensive weapon in a public place or on school premises, punishable by a prison sentence of up to two years, or for any person to sell knives to people under the age of 16.
    The street crime initiative was launched in March 2002 to reduce all street crime, irrespective of whether a weapon is used in committing the crime. I am pleased to report that, in the first six months of that ongoing initiative, street crime fell by 16 per cent. in the areas covered.
    Hugh Bayley: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend on her appointment to the Front Bench. York is one of the safest cities in the country, which is one reason that it attracts so many visitors. Nevertheless, there has been a significant increase in robbery—a threefold increase over the last three years—which, in a few cases, has involved the use of knives, particularly by young children. What are the Government doing to help police forces, such as North Yorkshire police and other law enforcement agencies, to get on top of this problem?
    Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for his good wishes and for raising an important problem, especially when children are using weapons for violent activities. Although North Yorkshire is not in the street crime initiative area, I hope that his local area, and the wider area of North Yorkshire, will benefit from the lessons

    11
    learned from the initiative through the spread of best practice. At 30 September 2002, there were 131,548 police officers in England and Wales, and 1,404 police officers in North Yorkshire, compared with 1,305 the previous year. Those are record numbers, but we need to look at sharing best practice and initiatives across the whole of England and Wales.
    Mr. George Osborne: The Minister said that in the first six months of the street crime initiative street crime had fallen. Given that we have had nine months since the end of that first six-month period, what has happened since then?
    Caroline Flint: I am pleased to report to the hon. Gentleman that street crime has continued to fall. The most recent figures on robbery were published on 4 April 2003 as part of the quarterly crime update. Recorded robbery fell by an estimated 23 per cent. in the period from October to December 2002 compared with the same period in 2001.
    Geraint Davies: In congratulating my hon. Friend on her recent appointment, may I ask her to welcome initiatives in Croydon in combating offensive weapons, in particular, charging without a caution anyone with a knife and, from today, banning street drinking in the centre of Croydon so that people who carry bottles, which can be used as offensive weapons, face fixed penalty notices from our new band of police community officers? Will she reassure the House that investment in those front-line services will continue? Will she also talk to other Home Office Ministers, including the Secretary of State, about the possibility of hypothecating the income from these fines on drunken yobs for front-line services to keep crime going down? In Croydon, it is down 6 per cent. in the last year.
    Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for bringing the initiative in Croydon to my attention. I am pleased to hear of these local initiatives, especially when they seem to be working. The Metropolitan police safer streets initiative has had considerable success and he will be aware that we are looking at extending fixed penalty notices under the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which is currently proceeding through Parliament. I am sure that my colleagues on the Front Bench will have heard his latter remarks.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: Given that beat policemen are the best deterrent against street crime, and given the extreme difficulty of recruiting beat policemen in South Oxfordshire, what does the Minister have to say to Simon Dixon, a constituent of mine who recently applied to join the police, passed all the tests with flying colours, but was turned down on the ground that he had three tattoos on his upper arms: one of a man waving a flag, one of a dog, and one of a mouse sitting on a toadstool smoking a hubble-bubble pipe? None of those tattoos was visible when he was wearing a short-sleeved shirt, yet he was told that they might cause
    12
    offence to hospital staff were he to be involved in an accident. What can she do to rectify that senseless rejection?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Unless the gentleman was carrying a knife, the Minister cannot answer that question.
    John Cryer: I welcome my hon. Friend to the Front Bench. I appreciate everything that she said about the action that has been taken, but should we not also consider banning such weapons? There are shops in the borough that I represent—the London borough of Havering—in which large and dangerous knives, swords, asps and clubs are openly sold and displayed. They attract younger people in particular, and a series of related crimes have been committed in the borough. Recently, in the constituency of Romford, a man had his right hand removed with a samurai sword. Clearly, and understandably, such crime provokes a great deal of widespread fear. Should not we consider banning the sale of those weapons and certainly banning their display?
    Caroline Flint: I thank my hon. Friend for welcoming me to the Front Bench. A number of offensive weapons are already banned, but I would be willing to listen to what he has to say, for him to come to see me about the weapons that he mentioned today and to consider whether further measures need to be taken both on display and on whether such weapons should be sold in the first place.

    Asylum Seekers
    Mr. Peter Viggers: What progress he is making with his plans to screen applicants for political asylum outside the United Kingdom. [119017]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): We have made steady progress in Europe with our proposals for zones of protection. In particular, we welcome contributions from the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the European Commission, which recently published a positive communication about our proposals. We are working with a number of our EU partners to develop aspects of our ideas on zones of protection, but the proposals will not obviate the need for continued action to bear down on abuse of the asylum system here, which is why we will continue with our package of robust measures, including introducing new measures where necessary to ensure that our system works effectively.
    Mr. Viggers: May I commiserate with the hon. Lady on the continuation of her extremely difficult duties? In view of the vehement and near unanimous hostility to the concept of open accommodation centres in the areas in which they may be located and of the fact that the overwhelming majority of immigrants stay here, regardless of the merit of their case, is there not a case for accelerating consideration of the policy of screening political asylum seekers outside the United Kingdom, as proposed by the Conservative party?
    Beverley Hughes: When I have more time to respond I would like to engage the hon. Gentleman in discussion why I think that the Tories' proposals are full of holes. Interestingly, Tory Front Benchers have commissioned Mr. Timothy Kirkhope—a former Minister with responsibility for immigration who was criticised by the Public Accounts Committee—to help them to fill the holes.
    We need a broad strategy. We need immediate action to secure our borders, which we have done, and to transform our asylum system, which will include pilots for accommodation centres, because we need a system that can cope robustly with claims. We also need sustainable international solutions to the problems of global migration. We are discussing proposals with our EU partners. They have been generally warmly received and we want to make progress.
    Jeremy Corbyn: As screening posts will be outside this country and, indeed, outside countries that signed up to the 1951 Geneva convention, will the Minister confirm that convention standards will apply and that if people applied for asylum at a centre but were not accepted they could still make an in-country application if they arrived in this country and could make a genuine case?
    Beverley Hughes: We currently have no plans to process asylum seekers on the borders of the EU, which several newspapers have reported. There is no prospect of any camps—Sangatte-style or otherwise. We want 10 take forward ideas for regional protection processing, which has the support of the UNHCR. I assure my hon. Friend that those arrangements will conform to our obligations under international conventions. We are making progress on ideas that are important to develop international co-operative responses, but we have never said that those proposals would obviate the need for a robust and comprehensive system in this country, as I said in my first answer. We anticipate that when people claim here, we will have to continue to process some of their claims here.
    Simon Hughes: On behalf of all my party colleagues, will the Minister pass on our congratulations and welcome to her colleagues, with whom we look forward to working, and her best wishes to those who have moved on?
    Does the Minister agree that Her Majesty's Government should adopt a twin-track approach on asylum seekers? First, we should encourage asylum seekers to seek asylum at the nearest possible place to the country from which they come, and the UK Government should assist those countries, which are often poor, to deal with asylum seekers who want to come to Europe, often in ever greater numbers. Secondly, we should honour proudly our commitment to uphold the 1951 convention for those who come to Europe and give asylum to those who need it. Does she agree that we should share responsibility and not shirk it, and that all people who apply in an EU country should be processed there and be dealt with fairly and justly at all times by that country?
    Beverley Hughes: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his welcome to my colleagues. I am extremely happy to be
    14
    carrying on with my responsibilities, which are very important for this country and internationally. He and I have discussed that and I know he understands what an important and interesting area it is.
    We agree that the important issue, which has always been our priority in such international discussions, is to improve regional protection for people. His point about the importance of enabling people to claim as close as possible to the areas from which they are fleeing is an important priority. In relation to claims within EU countries, as I have said throughout my responses to such questions, it is very important both that EU countries act together and that we continue to have a robust, clear and appropriate system within our countries. We have always envisaged that that would need to continue because claims would be made in individual countries. Here in the UK we need to be able to process those claims quickly and efficiently.
    Mr. Bob Blizzard: My hon. Friend will be aware that Australia uses another country—the island of Nauru—to process its asylum applications. Since that system was introduced, has there not been a dramatic reduction in the amount of people trafficking into that country?
    Beverley Hughes: I understand that that is so, and perhaps it is one of the consequences of that aspect of the Australian system. It is more straightforward for Australia to do that. It may also be a response to other aspects of the Australian system. However, my hon. Friend is right to highlight that every country, irrespective of its system, needs to have robust measures, including international co-operation, to tackle illegal trafficking and the activities of criminal gangs, which fuel illegal immigration and the rise in asylum claims. We are doing that substantially both with France and other European countries, not only in those close to home but in source countries and those with the transit routes, which criminal gangs use to bring people into this country.

    EU Constitution
    Mr. Speaker: I call Angela Watkinson.
    Mr. John Bercow: Splendid.
    Angela Watkinson: What assessment he has made of those sections of the draft EU constitution relating to external border controls. [119018]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett): I have not spoken yet and the hon. Gentleman says "splendid"!
    There is no threat in the draft constitution that will go to the intergovernmental conference in October to the frontiers protocol secured at Amsterdam by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. We have strengthened our own borders by moving the immigration and security measures to the French coast, by closing down the routes through the Frethun and Coquelles depots

    15
    and by securing better the route through the channel tunnel. Things are much more secure than they have ever been and that will remain the case.
    Angela Watkinson: Does the Home Secretary recognise that the only effective way of overcoming the asylum chaos is to scrap the existing system altogether and introduce a quota system for genuine refugees?
    Mr. Blunkett: I proposed a quota system in the White Paper a year last February. Along with UNHCR, I am implementing the first steps, as of last 1 April, to do just that. However, we also have to deal with a situation in which quotas are irrelevant, which occurs when people reach our soil. Opposition Members, including the shadow Home Secretary, have to answer a simple question: if someone arrives in Britain from Zimbabwe and claims asylum, what do we do with him?
    Mr. Chris Bryant: The Home Secretary may well have heard over recent days much huff and puff in many of the tabloid newspapers about the draft constitutional treaty and what it will do to border controls and asylum and immigration in Europe. Will he ignore all that nonsense and focus on the genuine issue at hand, which is ensuring that we have a better integrated system with the rest of Europe so that we have justice and fairness for those who claim asylum and seek to immigrate?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I agree entirely. We need much greater co-operation, but not a unified and centrally operated force, along the new borders of the extended European Union. All parties in the House are committed to that. We have experimented with that by helping the Spanish with those who traverse the Mediterranean and the straits of Gibraltar, and we are doing the same with other countries. I hope that we can do much more. However, I hope that we can act in a civilised, rational and organised fashion once people are inside the EU.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not understand the Home Secretary's comments about the EU constitution. In its draft form it explicitly says that the Union
    "shall ensure the absence of internal border controls for persons and shall frame a common policy on asylum, immigration and external border control".
    Does he agree with the Leader of the House that that is just a bit of "tidying up", because that appears to be at variance with my understanding of the text?
    Secondly, the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration said that even if we had international co-operation we would still need robust measures to deal with issues such as asylum. Will it not become impossible to take those robust measures nationally? If so, will the Home Secretary kindly tell the House whether, in those circumstances, the Government intend to veto the proposal, or will he explain why the sacrifice needs to be made to accept it?
    Mr. Blunkett: On the latter point, I make it abundantly clear that not a single measure that we are
    16
    taking would be ruled out or disqualified by the changes to be put to the intergovernmental conference in October—not one.
    On internal border controls, the Government secured, and have had for some time, an opt-out clause on all those matters, including Schengen. The opt-outs remain and are not affected by the Convention's discussions and proposals. I am simply stating a fact. It is no good Opposition Members dreaming up a different protocol, a different Convention and a different constitution, presenting that constitution to the British people and asking them to vote it down when it bears no resemblance to the reality of what the Government are prepared to sign up to.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: But is not an opt-out, by definition, something that comes to an end? Is my right hon. Friend sure that the clause recently added to the Convention, which enables the Commission to change, by its own internal arrangements, the controls over not only immigration but other aspects of the legal system normally decided by the House of Commons, will not have a direct impact irrespective of any opt-out that we hold at the moment?
    Mr. Blunkett: Yes, I am certain. I can tell my hon. Friend that neither I nor the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary would sign up to anything that precluded our getting off an escalator that was going somewhere that we did not wish to go.

    Asylum Seekers
    Sir Teddy Taylor: How many asylum seekers lost their applications for asylum in 2002; and how many of them have left the country. [119019]
    The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes): In the calendar year 2002, 54,650 people received negative initial asylum decisions. Some of those will still be in the appeals process and therefore not yet due for removal. However, during the same period we removed a record number of failed asylum seekers: 10,410 principal applicants, or 13,335 including dependants. That is an increase of 12 per cent. on the previous year and a 45 per cent. increase on 1997. A number of new measures are being taken to continue to increase the number of people removed when they come to the end of a claim that has not been approved.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: I thank the Minister for what I hope is hopeful news. Has she read the Home Affairs Committee report of April, which said that it was unsatisfactory that the Government could not even offer a rough estimate of the number of failed asylum seekers remaining in the UK? As it seems that at least 80 per cent. of those who have failed after lengthy and costly appeals remain here, should not the Government try to find out what is happening?
    Is the Minister aware that, according to advice that I have had from my constituents, there is an easy way to remain here? One simply makes a new application in a different name in the next town and starts all over again. I have given the Minister details of individual cases.

    17
    Will she consider the matter and find out why so many failed asylum seekers remain in this country without any apparent difficulty?
    Beverley Hughes: We are tackling some significant issues that make it difficult to remove people when their applications fail, including the problem of redocumenting them to the satisfaction of the country from which they have come. However, we are working actively with those countries, including instituting interviews by high commissioners in detention centres, to make sure that we can redocument people. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that, without documentation, we simply cannot put people on planes and ship them out. However, we are addressing that issue.
    We are using the detention estate much more effectively so that we can bring people to the point of removal and then get them out of the country. We are processing people more quickly, we are issuing them all with ID cards, and we require them to report regularly. We are therefore keeping in contact with people. Through those measures, we are able to increase, as I have said, the number of people who are removed. However, we need to go further. Eurodac, the international system that came online in January, enables us to identify whether people have claimed before—here or in another European country. There is a range of robust measures to increase the number of people removed, but it is equally important to reduce the intake. The hon. Gentleman will know that the combined measures that we took with France produced a reduction of 32 per cent. in the first quarter of this year. Reducing the intake is just as important as removing more people.
    Glenda Jackson: But when did those who have now been removed first apply for asylum? Many of my constituents are suffering grave disquiet because they have yet to be told whether their application has failed. Certainly, many who have been in this country for a considerable period have experienced a slowing down of the appeals process, most markedly in the acknowledgement of applications. I know that there has been an increase in both financial resources and personnel, but the backlog seems to be getting longer. What comfort can my hon. Friend offer my constituents that they will soon know their situation?
    Beverley Hughes: As my hon. Friend is aware—and I am glad that she acknowledged this—extra resources have been provided. The new intake of asylum claims has now been processed, and 75 per cent. will get their initial decision in two months. Further resources have been put into appeals—6,000 asylum appeals a month are now dealt with, so appeals are processed much more quickly.
    My hon. Friend is wrong that the backlog is getting bigger. There is still a backlog, but clearly, as the number of new claims is reduced, we are able to invest more resources in reducing it. In fact, it is going down
    18
    very considerably indeed. I hope that towards the end of this year we will only have work in progress, and will have eradicated the backlog completely.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: Is there not an inconsistency between the Minister's robust language and the huge expansion in in-country work permits? Will she confirm that more than 100,000 work permits will be handed out this year to people in-country, many of them without any skills, who are being given a sweetener so that they do not apply for asylum?
    Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman is completely wrong. Indeed, the points that he made demonstrate strongly that this is a real issue of difference between the Opposition and the Government. He is completely wrong that there is any link at all between the asylum system and managed migration policies, including work permits. It is not possible for somebody who has claimed asylum to switch to a work permit or any other managed migration route. We make no apology for encouraging people to come here to work, provided that that is done in a regulated and transparent way. Our economy needs it, and we welcome people on that basis. Whether an application for a work permit is made in-country or for somebody outside, it is employers—British business people—who apply for work permits because they want people to work in their businesses and support the UK economy when they cannot employ an indigenous member of the population.

    Community Support Officers
    Mr. Gordon Marsden: What assessment he has made of the effect of community safety wardens on reassuring vulnerable groups in the community about fear of crime. [119020]
    Ian Lucas: What steps he is taking to gauge the effect of the introduction of community support officers. [119021]
    The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): We have received a good deal of anecdotal information from a wide variety of sources, including letters from members of the public, which have told us that community support officers are having a positive effect in our communities by providing a visible and reassuring policing presence. Funding for CSOs includes a requirement for formal evaluation to be undertaken locally. The 27 forces from the first funding round are due to give us their initial findings by the end of September.
    Mr. Marsden: I warmly congratulate my hon. Friend on her arrival in the Home Office, and thank her for the eight CSOs that we currently have in Blackpool and the further five that we are likely to get in the area in the next couple of months. Having recently spent an evening on the beat with my local police, I was particularly impressed by the way in which CSOs were being used to tackle antisocial behaviour in Blackpool, particularly through the confiscation of alcohol. Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the crucial roles of CSOs is to reclaim the streets, especially to the benefit of older

    19
    people and small businesses in the areas affected by antisocial behaviour, so that as a result of their presence there is a much greater sense of community solidarity?
    Ms Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his warm welcome to my position. I am delighted that he has taken the initiative to go out with his local force and see for himself the situation on the ground. I am sure that a number of other Members have taken a similar step. My hon. Friend is right that Lancashire, his police area, got 72 community support officers in the first round and another 35 in the second round. As street crime Minister for Lancashire, I had the pleasure of meeting some of the people who have taken up those roles, and I can say that they are making a tremendous impact on their communities. People welcome a strong, visible presence on the streets to make them feel safe, and they know that the Government are determined to make sure that we support people in communities to reclaim our streets and make communities safer.
    Ian Lucas: Regrettably, North Wales police was one of the forces that did not apply to supplement the high level of policing already in the area with the addition of community support officers. I know that the funding arrangements favour forces that were wise enough to make applications when the scheme first started. Will the Home Office, and my hon. Friend with her new responsibilities, please reconsider those funding arrangements, to try to encourage the chief constable of North Wales and the North Wales police authority to take larger steps along the route of employing CSOs in the future?
    Ms Blears: Yes. My hon. Friend will be aware that there was an application from North Wales police for community support officers, and that they have been targeted in the Rhyl priority policing area. That is the decision of the chief constable. Clearly, there are funds available and we will have further rounds of community support officers. We want to encourage forces throughout the country to consider how they can get CSOs on the ground, helping their police forces to deliver improved community safety for everybody in our communities. I am happy to give my hon. Friend the reassurance that we will try to encourage his area and others to apply.
    Mr. John Bercow: I warmly congratulate the hon. Lady on her appointment and
    20
    wish her success in executing her responsibilities. Given that there might well be many people around the country, not least within the Aylesbury Vale district council area, of which my Buckingham constituency forms a part, who welcome the idea of community support officers but who face the prospect of being denied such a provision in practice, what assessment has she made within the past 72 hours of the transparency, consistency and objectivity of the criteria for allocation?
    Ms Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has undergone something of a conversion. Reading the debate on the Police Reform Bill last year, it was apparent to me that the Opposition were lukewarm about community support officers. Now that they have seen that they are such a success on the ground, they would like to have them everywhere. I can tell him that I will be looking at the allocation criteria.
    The Opposition may not have supported CSOs, but they are hugely popular throughout the country. Some of the comments that I have had from the Rhymney area include one from John Vaughn, aged 73, who said:
    "I would say that having the officers patrolling our estate will give us more security, and I think that I will sleep a bit better at night."
    Elderly residents say that they can now go out in the evenings, which they could not do before. The introduction of CSOs is one of the most successful policies that the Government have implemented. I am delighted to welcome the hon. Gentleman's support.
    Ann Winterton: Although community support officers might give people some reassurance, it must be accepted that they have no powers. What most people want is more police on the beat and, to reassure them about crime levels, when they report a crime, they want a policeman to turn up. Often, when people ring the station, it says that there are not enough officers on duty to attend the scene of the crime.
    Ms Blears: I also welcome the hon. Lady's conversion. In the past 12 months, police numbers, not community support officer numbers, have risen by 4,337—the largest rise for 27 years, in a 12-month period, in the number of police officers on the ground. It is this Government who have been prepared to put in the resources, together with reform, to ensure that we can provide increased community safety for the people whom we represent.

Regional Assemblies
3.30 pm
The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. John Prescott): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the referendums for establishing elected regional assemblies in the English regions.
First, however, I should like to apologise to the House for the stories that appeared in the press over the weekend and this morning. There has been intense speculation about which regions will move forward to a referendum, but the source of the stories over the weekend appears to have been a leaked Cabinet Committee letter. I can assure the House that that letter was not released on anyone's authority and I can only apologise once again for the leak that has occurred. It is unacceptable and I do everything that I can to stop such leaks but, frankly, this is outside my control and I can only apologise to the House.
In 1997, this Government inherited one of the most centralised systems of government in the western world, and the House knows that we have reversed that legacy. During the past six years, we have carried out a far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change. We have decentralised government and transformed our political system through devolution to Scotland and Wales. We are continuing our reforms of the House of Lords and modernising local government. We have restored democratic citywide government to London. All those things were opposed by the Opposition, who eventually came round to accepting them. We have set up strong regional development agencies in England, which have helped to increase investment and employment in all our regions to record levels. We have strengthened regional policy and helped to create a network of eight voluntary regional chambers.
In May 2002, we published our White Paper, "Your Region, Your Choice". It set out our plans for elected regional assemblies in those regions where the people wanted them. It contained proposals for a new regional tier of government that would take powers and responsibilities from central government and not local authorities. The White Paper said that regional assemblies would make a real difference with powers over economic development, jobs, investment, transport, planning, housing, culture, arts and sport. Elected regional assemblies will bring greater democracy and a new political voice to the regions. They will reduce bureaucracy rather than increase it—[Interruption.] The bureaucracy was the regional government offices established by the Opposition when they were in government, with no democratic accountability whatever. That is what we believe was bureaucracy, but we are going to introduce regional accountability and greater democracy.
Last month, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 became law. Today, I am taking the first steps under that Act to deliver our undertaking to hold the first regional referendums during this Parliament. We have no intention of forcing elected regional assemblies on any region, but it is clear to me that there are some regions where voters want that opportunity, and I intend to give them that choice. The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act sets out what must
22
happen before I can call those referendums. First, I must consider the level of interest in the region in holding a referendum. Secondly, the boundary committee for England must have made recommendations on options for unitary local government in parts of the region that currently have two tiers of local authorities.
On 2 December 2002, we started a sounding exercise in the eight regions outside London. We gave the soundings document a wide distribution and asked for responses by 3 March. The House will recall that the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill was amended in the Lords in April to allow for a second question in the referendums on the option for unitary local government. The soundings exercise was extended to take that into account, and we asked for further responses by 16 May. In assessing levels of interest, I have considered all relevant responses. I have today published a summary of the responses and other evidence that I have considered. The document, "Your Region, Your Say", has been placed in the Library and made available in the Vote Office. In total, we estimate that at least 50,000 people were involved in the soundings exercise—a lot more than in the typical opinion poll often quoted in the House.
More than 7,000 direct responses were from individuals. The rest came from organisations or individuals responding in a representative capacity—for example, through surveys or petitions. Although those responses represented the views of many hundreds of individuals, they were each recorded as a single response.
It will not be a surprise to the House that levels of interest in a referendum vary between the different regions of England. In some regions interest was low. In the west midlands, only 16 per cent. of respondents said that that they wanted a referendum. In the east and south-east of England, about 35 per cent. said that they wanted a referendum, and in the south-west and the east midlands the figure was about 40 per cent. Taken together with other views, information and evidence, those figures show that there is insufficient evidence in the west midlands, the east of England, the south-east, the south-west and the east midlands to justify holding a referendum now. I am therefore not directing the boundary committee to undertake local government reviews in those regions.
The picture is quite different in the three northern regions. In the north-east and the north-west, more than half of respondents wanted a referendum. In my own region, Yorkshire and Humberside, almost three quarters said yes—although I am aware that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) registered his minority "no" vote. In all three northern regions, there was significant and widespread interest in holding a referendum from the business community, trade unions, local authorities and the voluntary sector. Taking all that evidence together, I am satisfied that interest in a referendum is high in all three regions. I am therefore pleased to announce to the House that it is my intention to hold referendums at the first opportunity in the north-east, the north-west and Yorkshire and the Humber. I expect that opportunity to come in the autumn of 2004.
Today, I directed the boundary committee for England to carry out a local government review in each of the three regions. Those reviews will cover the existing

23
two-tier areas of Durham, Northumberland, Cheshire, Cumbria, Lancashire and North Yorkshire county councils. The boundary committee will recommend at least two options for structural change in relation to each area, and voters in those areas will be given a choice as to which unitary option they prefer. Reviews in the three northern regions will begin shortly. Copies of the guidance to the boundary committee have been placed in the Library.
Building on the proposals in the regions White Paper, we intend to publish a draft Bill setting out the powers and functions for elected regional assemblies in those regions that want them. If people vote yes in the referendums, we could have the first elected assemblies up and running early in the next Parliament—which clearly will be under a Labour Government. That will be another significant step on the road to regional government for England. It will take forward the Government's commitment to develop a strong regional voice in all eight regions. The regional chambers, the regional development agencies and the Government offices will all continue to ensure that there is a distinctive regional voice from every region, irrespective of whether there is an elected regional assembly. This Government remain committed to a strong regional policy that will benefit the country as a whole.
We are offering the people of the three northern regions an historic opportunity: an opportunity that we offered to the people of Scotland, Wales and London before them; an opportunity for the northern regions to choose how they are governed, to strengthen democracy and to reduce bureaucracy; an opportunity to gain a new political voice and to secure greater prosperity, for more growth, more jobs and more investment; and an opportunity for those regions that have the desire for change to determine their own future. Today's announcement is good for democracy, good for the English regions and good for the whole of the UK. I commend this statement to the House.
David Davis: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for making his statement and for giving me prior sight of it. I, for one, accept his apology for the leaked letter. I commend him for realising that a matter of such constitutional importance requires a Minister to come to the House to announce it. For once, perhaps, the Prime Minister should take a lesson from his deputy.
The events of the past two weeks have shown just how much the Government believe in consulting before introducing major constitutional change. It was apparent with the euro, the European constitution and the strange events of last week. All those matters show a Government at odds with the people whom they govern. To date, they have held 34 referendums on a range of subjects, but how do they choose the issues on which to hold a referendum? Clearly, they do not do that on the basis of constitutional importance or what matters to the public. They choose on only one basis: when they believe that they can win. However, today, they may have got that judgment wrong.
24
We believe that the Deputy Prime Minister has instigated referendums in the north-east, north-west and Yorkshire and Humberside that will deeply embarrass him and the Government. Such a measure will do little more than pour millions of pounds of taxpayers' cash down the drain as the Deputy Prime Minister blindly chases his obsession with what will undoubtedly become an expensive white elephant. Rather than a solution, it is a symptom of Labour's failure to deliver decent public services. It is a desperate attempt to create legitimacy for an idea for which there is no argument, advantage or appetite. As Lord Whitty said, elected regional government is not an issue
"in the pubs and clubs"
of the north.
The Government received a dismal total of 8,000 replies nationally to their consultation on whether referendums were needed—surely even the Deputy Prime Minister could take the hint. That was after the Government extended the deadline for submitting replies from March to May because of lack of interest in the exercise. In March, they had received 5,500 replies—fewer than the number of people who voted for the Monster Raving Loony party at the last election. In May, the Deputy Prime Minister had received a mere 7,000 replies. However, when my office rang last week, we were told that 8,000 replies had now been received. It appears that the cut-off date for the replies has been extended yet again in a desperate attempt to stimulate interest. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that? Is it now Government policy to leave the polls open until they receive a result that they like? Eight thousand replies after three attempts from a population of 42 million is a pathetic figure. The Deputy Prime Minister's dream appears to put everyone else to sleep.
Let us put the issue in context. The Daily Mail sells 2.4 million newspapers every day and has received well over 1 million votes for a referendum on the European constitution in only one attempt. The Deputy Prime Minister's sounding exercise had a derisorily low turnout, yet he has announced that he intends to plough ahead regardless, despite promises from the Minister for Local Government and the Regions that the Government
"wouldn't feel bound to proceed if the turnout was that low."
Let us consider the document. Is it right that, in Yorkshire and Humberside, only 833 people out of a population of 5 million wanted a referendum and got it? Is it correct that, in the north-east, more individuals were against than for a referendum, yet they still got one? Is it true that, in the north-west, all the county councils that replied opposed a referendum but still got one? What would have constituted a response that was too low? What is a minimum "yes" vote in a referendum that will legitimise an assembly?
The people of my constituency in the north, like those around them, work hard, pay their taxes and expect a fair deal in return. Instead, the Government will waste their money on another pet project. Will the Deputy Prime Minister state precisely how much the Government intend to spend on promoting those ideas? Will he undertake to provide an equal amount to promote the other case in the referendum campaigns? Will he comment on the allegations that the north-west and north-east regional chambers have been using

25
taxpayers' money illegally to promote an elected assembly and on other political campaigns? Will he detail the steps that he is prepared to take to ensure that such misuse of public funds does not continue during a referendum campaign?
People do not have any idea what a regional assembly will mean for their locality. Many people support a regional assembly only because they believe that it will mean more money for their region. Yet the Minister for Local Government and the Regions stated:
"Regional assemblies won't get preferential treatment. The funding will be the same as for those without them."
Can the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that? Is the Minister of State right to say that regional assemblies will mean not one extra penny for the people of the north of England? Can the Deputy Prime Minister also guarantee that, before the first referendum is held, he will have not only published the Bill but taken it through Parliament, making it clear what the final powers of the regional assemblies will be?
The Deputy Prime Minister tries hard to represent regional assemblies as a decentralising measure, yet recent polls conducted by the Local Government Chronicle and the Local Government Association show that more than three quarters of those in local government believe that regional assemblies would strip powers away from councils, which would get nothing significant in return from national Government. Are they right or wrong? The Government have still not satisfactorily answered the West Lothian question, yet today they have created a new constitutional problem—what we might call the North Yorkshire question. How will the Deputy Prime Minister stop the metropolitan majority in one part of a region dominating the interests of another part? For example, if a massive majority of the people of North Yorkshire vote against the plans for a regional assembly, will he still force them to join?
I come now to the cost of the regional assemblies. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm that the Mayor of London is hitting council tax payers with bills five times larger than the Government estimated? Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what he estimates the extra cost to taxpayers in the regions will be as a result of the regional assemblies? He has sought to represent regional assemblies as a mechanism for encouraging economic growth, yet the Confederation of British Industry believes that they could actually damage regional economic growth, and the Institute of Directors says that they will only add another layer of bureaucracy. Are they right or wrong? The fact is that the assemblies will not bring extra money to the regions; they will only take extra money from local residents. At a time when residents and businesses want less tax and less bureaucracy, the assemblies will only bring about the opposite: more tax and more bureaucracy. At a time when the regions should be unleashing their potential, they could he held back by a monster of the Deputy Prime Minister's own making.
Many of the people of the north of England will be surprised that the Government have now apparently placed regional assemblies at the top of their agenda, particularly at a time when people's real concerns lie with issues such as health, education and crime. The regional assemblies will not deliver one extra teacher, one extra nurse or one extra police officer: not one extra
26
nurse in the north-west, when hospitals such as the Liverpool Women's hospital have seen the number of patients waiting for admission rise by more than 40 per cent; not one extra teacher in the north-east, when one in three 11-year-olds leave primary school in the area unable to read, write or count properly; and not one extra police officer in Yorkshire and Humberside, where robbery has risen by more than 40 per cent. in the last year alone. People want public service reform, not public sector proliferation.
Regional assemblies are an answer in search of a question, a solution in search of a problem and a policy in search of someone to love it. This misuse of referendums is an attempt to give a false legitimacy to a fraudulent idea. The people of the north are yet again being asked to pay more for less. Just as the Prime Minister's attempt last week to pass off botched institutions to members of his Cabinet failed, this attempt to do the same in the north will also fail. This is no way to treat the people of the north of England. They deserve better; they deserve a fair deal. That is why we will fight the Deputy Prime Minister's proposals every inch of the way. They are a payback for politicians and a burden for the people, and when the people of the north are presented with the proposals, we are confident that they will give the Government the very same hand gesture that we have come to expect from the Deputy Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister: Pathetic! I think I prefer the quiet man. The right hon. Gentleman asks why we should do this. Let me make it clear: it was in our manifesto. I have been involved with this question, rightly or wrongly, for more than 20 years. We have debate after debate in which we decide things in our party. We then put the proposals in an election manifesto, and at the last two elections we made those commitments.
As I understand it, we had overwhelming victories in those elections. These proposals were part of our promise, part of our agreement and part of our manifesto, and I am delighted to be here carrying out that promise.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about promises and says that we have never put forward a referendum that we lost, but I am bound to say about entry to the Common Market that—unhappily at the time, as I opposed Britain's entry—we lost that one. However, we gave the people of this country the chance to make a decision on probably the most important constitutional issue facing Britain: whether we were to be a member of the Common Market. The Tories, when they were in government at that time, refused to have any referendum or consultation with the people. We gave the people that choice and they made it. They wanted to be part of Europe.
A lot has happened since then and an awful lot of agreements were passed by the previous Administration—treaties that have affected the laws of this land—although there was never a referendum. In fact, referendums were refused by Governments of whom the right hon. Gentleman was a member, so it is a bit hypocritical to come along here and lecture our party, which believes in consulting people. This is one of the processes of consultation—a referendum to give the people a choice—that we put in our manifesto.

27
The arguments are not unique and I think that the right hon. Gentleman has been reading up on some old speeches—they are all the same. The Tories have said, "It costs too much, it is not legitimate, it is not the talk in the pubs, the people don't want it." He said all that today, but he said it about Scotland, he said it about Wales, he said it about London and he said it about the regional development agencies, but each time the Tories have come round to accepting it once it has been done. What hypocrisy!
The right hon. Gentleman talks about the regional vote and asks what people will do in North Yorkshire. Has not North Yorkshire county council agreed to have a referendum? His own Tory council in North Yorkshire has said that it would like a referendum. Basically, it is the only Tory council in North Yorkshire and it wants a referendum.
Mr. Eric Pickles: There is only one.
The Deputy Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman means the county council, but others are involved. That is what the county council has to say.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) reels off all those people who are against the proposals, but I have some of the polls here—for example, a MORI poll of March 1999—and many people accept their authority when the results come out. One says that 52 per cent. wanted a referendum, and the BBC poll of 2002 said that 72 per cent. wanted one. Indeed, the County Councils Network—the very county councils that are opposing the proposals—set up a review in their own areas and 70 per cent. of the people said that they wanted a referendum. That is the county councils themselves: they paid for that review and more than 70 per cent. said that they want a referendum, so I am a little cautious when I hear the right hon. Gentleman talking about them.
In all these referendums, Cheshire—[Interruption.] Well, it was part of the County Councils Network. [Interruption.] I know that Conservative Members do not like the results, but that is what happened. In all those areas, we have shown that people—trade unions, businesses, organisations and individuals—have called for a referendum. That has persuaded me to hold a referendum in the three northern areas that I have mentioned, and properly so.
There is considerable evidence to be taken alongside that which I have placed before the House today. As for the abolition of the county councils and the point that the right hon. Gentleman made, he must be aware that the Tory Government abolished more county councils than the Labour Government, and did not even ask them. He knows that those county councils were abolished by the Tories, and I should remind the Opposition of them, as everyone on their Front Bench was involved in it. We find that Humberside, which is my own area, as well as Avon, Cleveland and Hereford and Worcester were all abolished by the previous Government without any consultation. The Greater London council was abolished without any consultation, so I will not take any of this hypocritical comment.
28
Regarding whether there will be greater economic prosperity, I must tell the right hon. Gentleman to look at the regions and the economic data, whether for jobs or investment, for 1997 and compare them with those for now. He will see that there has been a remarkable turnaround in every one of those regions.
The highest levels of employment and investment have occurred under the regional development agencies that we established during the first two years of a Labour Government.
As for whether the CBI is right or wrong, it is wrong. It is also divided on the issue. As anyone in any of the northern regions will confirm, its members are not completely united; but they are not all against the proposal. Those who think that it is damaging are wrong.
Finally, there was the claim that the Daily Mail was conducting a survey. Well, the Daily Mail—the Tory rag, the Tory propaganda paper—would not know truth if it stared it in the face. So, it is carrying out a poll and we will see what it says tomorrow. Of course, there are international observers from The Guardian who will report on whether the poll is legitimate.
At the end of the day, we promised the people a referendum. We promised to give them a choice and allow them to make their decision. We are acting on that promise now.
Mr. Edward Davey: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister not just for his statement, but for his performance. I welcome the news that the three English regions can now choose between regional democracy and a regional quango state. This is a good day for democracy. Devolution supporters can now combine to campaign for a "yes" vote, and to kick-start a vital constitutional reform. Will the Deputy Prime Minister confirm, however, that his noble Friend Lord Falconer will not be in charge of regional devolution, despite the establishment of a Department for Constitutional Affairs?
Does the Deputy Prime Minister realise that he could have given the "yes" campaign an even bigger boost had he proposed a far richer devolution than is proposed in the White Paper? Voters in the regions would be much more impressed by him if he could assure them that his regional devolution is about reducing Government control freakery, about cutting Whitehall down to size, and about voter power rather than ministerial power. Unfortunately, he cannot do that.
Why is the right hon. Gentleman not prepared to allow regions to hold the Environment Agency, the Highways Agency or the learning and skills councils to account? Why do the Government on the one hand support devolution, and on the other try to reduce the power of regions to negotiate at Brussels for regional support? Why do they support the so-called repatriating of structural funds, which will deny new regional assemblies a chance to win extra cash for their own communities?
The Deputy Prime Minister failed to mention that an amendment tabled in the House of Lords won a second referendum on the question of local government reorganisation. It was, in fact, a Liberal Democrat amendment. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that

29
the second referendum not only gives voters more choice, but improves the chances of success for a "yes" vote?
When does the Deputy Prime Minister expect to publish the draft Bill on powers for regional assemblies? Can he confirm that it will be published before the referendums? Today's statement marks an important if modest start on the road to regional devolution. While Liberal Democrats would drive a faster, more well-built model, we are glad that the Deputy Prime Minister has, on this occasion, overcome the obstacles placed in the way by the Prime Minister.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his response and, indeed, his support. I have always felt that we need a credible Bill and a proper consensus across Government. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman and I could agree on a good deal more about how the powers might be extended, but this will be a dynamic development, like those involving Scotland and Wales. Those who are elected will have a regional voice, which will give them more power over central Government. They will have to deal with, and negotiate with, central Government. I present the Bill knowing full well that those in the regions may expect more than it contains, but they will have a framework within which to negotiate and make their case.
Although I readily accept that there is a legitimate argument in favour of much of what the hon. Gentleman has said, he should not underestimate the assemblies' ability to conduct hearings and hold regional bodies to account—including the Highways Agency and the Environment Agency.
I think that rubbing two fingers together means money—although I had better keep off the subject of two fingers. We highlighted where the resources would come from in that matter and we await future events. That is the nature of political development between us.
An amendment was mentioned, and I properly record that that was a Liberal amendment tabled in the House of Lords, and that it made the Bill much better. It was important to bring the Bill before the House in time to start the process, and I am grateful for the support that we received. The people will now have a greater choice in respect of what they believe should be the unitary choices within a county council area. They alone will take the decision. The Bill is the better for the amendment, and I readily agree that that came from the Liberals. As to the publication of the Bill, we hope to be able to publish it before the referendum.
Joyce Quin: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement and his long-standing commitment to transfer powers to people in the regions in order to give them a stronger voice. I urge him, particularly if this turns out to be a five-year Parliament, to examine the possibility of bringing in regional government before or around the time of the next election. Does he agree that if we are to build on people's loyalty towards their own region, it is important to conduct a concerted campaign across government to give people all the detailed information that they will need before casting their votes?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my right hon. Friend for her remarks and support. She has been an acknowledged campaigner in this sphere for many years, and I recall both of us campaigning together in support of regional government. I think that we are both pleased about the statement that I made today, and the debate will now start. I want to make it clear to people in regions that we assume that they want regional government, and that this will be the acid test. If they fail the test, frankly, this will not come about. I believe that it will, but the test lies in the choice that we are giving the people. As for whether the Bill can be introduced before the date of the next election, it is highly questionable when that event will come—we all know about the problems of timetables in Parliament. We will certainly do our utmost to conduct the referendum, and I am committing myself to doing so. The timetable seems a little short in view of the fact that I have to bring a Bill before the House, but we will do all that we can to make as much progress as possible.
Mr. Michael Jack: Can the Deputy Prime Minister tell us whether the referendum that he proposes will be binding on the Government? Will there be a minimum threshold—a minimum number of people who would have to take part in the referendum before it could be deemed valid?
The Deputy Prime Minister: All referendums, as is quite common, are advisory on these matters. That is clear from every referendum that has been held. As to whether there should be any limitations in respect of the number of people who vote, we have no intention to introduce any at this stage.
Mr. George Howarth: I, too, congratulate the Deputy Prime Minister, even though I disagree with him, on bringing this policy so far. I know that he has expounded the virtues of regional government for many years, but does he accept that any close analysis of the consultation exercise would reveal that regional government is a preoccupation of the nomenklatura rather than the people—certainly the people in the north-west? Will he at least keep his mind open to the possibility of adding a third question to the ballot paper for the north-west—whether it would be better to have a Greater Merseyside authority, along the same lines as the Greater London Authority?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Personally, I do not agree with my hon. Friend's proposition. We agreed that regional government should cover all regions. There are very powerful city regions such as London and Merseyside—and we would all want to congratulate Liverpool on being European city of culture—but we do not intend to change along the lines that my hon. Friend suggested. There will be a regional body and all the people in the region will decide. It is for the people to decide; we are giving them a choice.
Mrs. Angela Browning: The Deputy Prime Minister said that there was no case for an elected assembly in the south-west. How long is he

31
prepared to allow the current quango—unelected, unaccountable and spending public money—to stay in place before he decides that there is no case for it at all?
The Deputy Prime Minister: In some areas of the south-west—Cornwall, for example—there is a strong demand for independence or regional government. However, insufficient evidence has been provided for me to justify holding a referendum there. As for the quango that the hon. Lady mentions, yes, we would like it to be democratically accountable. That is precisely what we are trying to achieve. If Conservative Members believe that regional bodies in the south are quangos, they have the opportunity not to join them.
The Tories are the majority on some of the assemblies in the south-east, since the elections in which they began to increase their vote. Conservative Front Benchers say that they want nothing to do with the assemblies, but their people are flocking on to them, controlling them and chairing them.
Mr. Hilton Dawson: I offer my right hon. Friend my most sincere congratulations on his statement. Does he share my bemusement—and that of my constituents who are concerned about the crucial issues of planning, including housing development on green fields—at hearing the Tory spokesman declare that he does not want democracy? He does not want local people to have a say in the fundamentally important issues that affect their lives. This is an historic occasion. Does my right hon. Friend agree that there will be a role for the great historic cities of the north—York, Durham and Lancaster—in the forthcoming elected regional assemblies?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his congratulations. Under the elected regional governments, important regional cities such as York, Lancaster, and, indeed, Hull, will continue to play an important part in their regions. Those cities have their responsibilities and resources and the unitary authorities will get on with their jobs. The regional governments will add a regional dimension. The people in the regions have shown that they want regional government, but we will know the answers after the referendums. If the people want regional governments and we set them up, would the Tories get rid of them?
Mr. Peter Atkinson: Given the fact that fewer than 400 individuals in the north-east responded to the sounding exercise by the first deadline of 3 March, can the Deputy Prime Minister tell the House what final percentage of the electorate of 1.9 million responded? That is a simple question.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I cannot do the quick calculation—[Interruption.] I can only give the answer to the question, whether the hon. Gentleman accepts it or not. The report is in the Library and the hon. Gentleman may make his own calculations. As I have tried to show when presenting the argument today, I am satisfied that, by any measure, an overwhelming case has been made for the three northern areas to hold a referendum.
Ms Dari Taylor: I warmly welcome my right hon. Friend's announcement this afternoon.
32
Regional assemblies will certainly enliven and refresh our governing powers. They will ensure that voluntary bodies, commerce and business, as well as political parties, will be involved in the governance of their localities. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if we are to achieve that refreshment, a proportional voting system will be necessary?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for her remarks. The White Paper makes it clear that we wish to achieve proper representation. We recognise that we need a form of proportional representation—[Interruption.] I have spent most of my time opposing proportional representation, but I recognise that in some areas of the country the 25 or 30 members of the regional assembly would otherwise come overwhelmingly from one party. That would not be good for democracy or for the regions themselves, which will need consensus on regional matters. That is why we have adopted the system described in the White Paper.
Jon Trickett: Speaking as someone who represents the historic heart of Yorkshire, which—as everyone knows—is around Wakefield, I assure my right hon. Friend that he has the warm congratulations of the people whom I represent. We will return a majority when the referendum comes, because the people of Yorkshire fully understand that an over-centralised state—some 150 quangos still hold sway in Yorkshire—is not tolerable. We have had 100 years of a two-speed economy, in which the gross domestic product per head for knowledge-based industry is only 76 per cent. in Yorkshire and the Humber area, whereas in the south-east it is 130 per cent. That two-speed economy, and the over-centralised and unaccountable state, surely cannot be allowed to continue. I know that my right hon. Friend will campaign with me and many others for the election of the regional assembly.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks and congratulations. He made an important point about differences in gross domestic product between regions. There has been growing disparity over a decade or so, but just a small change—0.5 per cent.—would create millions of pounds that could be put to good use in a region. One purpose of the development of RDAs is to improve regional accountability, productivity and prosperity. The evidence is that improvement has happened in Scotland and Wales, and it is about time that the English regions caught up and had the same opportunities.
I take my hon. Friend's point about quangos. No major dent has been made in the number of quangos established over a long time under the previous Administration—and I must concede that there have been a few set up during our time too. Governments tend to set up such bodies because there is no directly elected body to deal with matters regionally. We hope to change that, which will make a difference to the quangos largely created by the previous Administration.
One further point needs to be made. The previous Administration rightly established the Government offices for the regions, seeking integration in the regions.

33
It was proper for them to do that, and I cannot understand why the Tory party now opposes making those offices democratically accountable to the regions.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: The Deputy Prime Minister has stressed the importance of consultation. When the consultation, which was extended twice, produced a derisory result, he fell back on what he described as his party's manifesto commitment. Is he aware that there will be not one penny extra for the regional governments that he intends to set up? There will be the same amount of money, but a top-slice will be taken off for those who want to get into the trough. There are too many such people. As I have already said to the Minister for Local Government and the Regions, rural areas will lose out, and democracy has nothing at all to do with regional government.
The Deputy Prime Minister: As far as democracy is concerned, would it not be fair to let the people make a choice? Why does the hon. Gentleman assume—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: What about the Convention?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Take a grip of yourself, sunshine.
In fact, there is representative democracy, and we all support it. There is evidence of that. I cannot see why people should not make their own decisions, and referendums will give them that opportunity. That is what we are trying to do.
As for the proposals being dismissed for the north-west, about 3,500 people participated, and concluded—
Sir Nicholas Winterton: Out of 7 million!
The Deputy Prime Minister: I am just trying to—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) is a Deputy Speaker in Westminster Hall, and I expect better behaviour from him.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am incensed!
Mr. Speaker: Order. Calm yourself.
The Deputy Prime Minister: I always feel better when I incense Tories.
Basically, people can make a decision. At the end of the day, it is up to them, and that is right. As for dismissal of the influence and control that there will be over resources in the north-west, the budget there will be £730 million, and if the influence that there will be over other budgets is taken into account, the region will have a say in the spending of roughly £2.1 billion. That is an awful lot of money by any standards.
Sir Sydney Chapman: The Deputy Prime Minister will know that the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill is currently before the House. Its provisions give sweeping new planning powers to regional authorities. In the interests of democracy, may
34
I have his agreement to one simple proposition: will he assure us that those powers will not be given to the regional authorities unless and until they elect regional assemblies?
The Deputy Prime Minister: As the hon. Gentleman will know from the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill, the regional assemblies will have those powers. By the hon. Gentleman's own analysis, the elected regional assemblies will legitimately be able to deal with planning. I cannot accept that other regions should be denied that possibility simply because they do not have an elected assembly. On regional spatial planning, the Bill will give a number of powers to the regional assemblies, and we think that correct.
Mr. Peter Mandelson: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his welcome statement on behalf of my constituents and others in the north-east who simply want the right to vote either way, which is an opportunity that the Conservative party would deny them. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the aim of devolution is not to replicate the role of local authorities at regional level, but to create a genuine strategic role for the regions? Does he further agree that the system to be created will not be narrowly party political, but will be inclusive of all regional partners, including the business and voluntary sectors?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I very much agree with my right hon. Friend. There is no doubt about the regional dimension, and I certainly agree that the people should be given the choice. That seems to be the difference between us and the Opposition: we will give the people the chance to make a choice, while the Opposition would deny people that choice, as they did for Scotland, Wales and London, only agreeing about it afterwards. However, we have to go through this process because that, I assume, is how they play opposition.
On the involvement of other stakeholders, my right hon. Friend will be aware that the White Paper proposes a civic forum, such as those in Scotland and Wales, which would mean that many more people, other than elected members, would be involved in making decisions. The White Paper proposal would mean that the assembly was a more strategic body, which allowed many more people to make decisions about their region.
Mr. David Curry: Will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that declaration of the results of a referendum will take place at constituency or local government level, so that we may differentiate between the turnout and the vote in each part of the region, and if North Yorkshire's vote is significantly less, or different from, that in the rest of the region, we shall know and draw our own conclusions? Will the Deputy Prime Minister explain why he so badly misled the House when describing the powers of the assemblies? In his statement, he said that they would have powers over economic development, jobs, investment, transport, planning, housing, culture, arts and sport. He knows that his document talks about the vaguest of strategic powers. If the powers are real, why

35
can a wholly unaccountable body of between 25 and 35 people, partly elected through proportional representation, be held to be doing the job?
The Deputy Prime Minister: No more than the regional governments who make those decisions now. We just want to make the assemblies democratically accountable, and I am doing that against a great deal of opposition. It is the Government who are asking for greater democratic accountability; we hope that that will come to every English region, but we have accepted that the regions must make that decision. We have to recognise that some regional assemblies may be non-elected while others are elected. We do not want to disadvantage non-elected regional assemblies, so we need to find a careful balance; they will not all be the same because the powers of a directly elected accountable body have to be greater. We shall deal with that when we come to the legislation.
As for elections, we shall be talking to the Electoral Commission about some of the proposals, and will bear the right hon. Gentleman's comments in mind. If he wants to write to me with his recommendations, I am prepared to consider them. We have not yet started our discussions with either the Electoral Commission or the boundary committee; I had to make my statement to the House before I could begin that process.
Mr. Eric Martlew: Although I welcome my right hon. Friend's decision, I should have welcomed it much more if Cumbria had been with the north-east. However, that is not the reality at present.
The effect of a yes vote will be to reorganise local government. Can my right hon. Friend tell us whether the boundary committee will be able to look beyond county council boundaries to form the new unitary authorities?
The Deputy Prime Minister: Because of my years of dealing with regional matters, I am well aware that there is great contention about whether Cumbria should be in the north-east or the north-west, so I tread carefully when drawing conclusions about that. As my hon. Friend rightly said, it has been decided that it should now be within the north-west regional area.
I have been asked whether county boundaries would stay the same when considering electoral areas. The areas do not have to be defined by the county boundaries. We want to achieve a proper balance between the rural and urban areas, and the committee will take that into account. I shall give the committee guidance notes—I think that they are available in the Library—which confirm what I have said to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: The people of Norfolk will be relieved that, for the time being, a referendum will not be foisted on them. How long will that decision remain in place, however, and what does "for the time being" mean? Can we now scrap the unloved regional development agency? The Deputy Prime Minister is obviously aware that people in
36
Norfolk greatly value the work done by the local county council and parish councils, so why does he use every opportunity to undermine county and parish councils?
The Deputy Prime Minister: That flies in the face of the Conservative Government's activities some years ago. They scrapped county councils. I have not scrapped one yet, and all that I propose to do is to allow people to decide whether they want to keep their county councils, or whether they prefer to have regional government in a unitary structure, so that we have two-tier government, not three-tier government. I do not know whether people in Norfolk want that, but they are not faced with that position at present. I do not readily accept for a moment that people in Norfolk want to abolish the RDAs. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman campaign on that at the next election; I suspect that he did not have anything about it in his manifesto. I believe that, like every other part of the United Kingdom, the eastern region wants the RDAs.
Mr. Neil Turner: I warmly welcome the statement, and I congratulate my right hon. Friend on it. May I remind him that part of the proposal will involve reorganising local government, and that the existing local government work force will have concerns about that reorganisation? Safeguards for the work force have been included in previous reorganisations. Can he confirm whether those safeguards will exist when the new changes take place?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes a very powerful point. Not only the work force, but others, will be very much affected by the changes when we embark on the referendums, and if they lead to a positive yes for regional government. That will involve considerable changes, particularly in the local structure, and my hon. Friend can be assured that we will give every consideration to the concerns that arise.
Mr. Stephen O'Brien: During the Deputy Prime Minister's statement, he used the following sentence to justify a referendum in the north-west: in the north-east and north-west, more than half of all respondents wanted a referendum. Will he confirm that he aggregated the figures for the two regions to produce that result, and that he missed out the word "each" in front of the north-east and the north-west? Will he give, from his file, the breakdown of figures for those who support and those who are against referendums for Cumbria, Lancashire, Greater Manchester, Merseyside and Cheshire? Will he confirm that the majority in Cheshire are absolutely against a referendum, and against regional government in the north-west?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that the document is available, and the hon. Gentleman can check the validity of my answers. Of course there was a majority in the north-west. The figure was not aggregated in that sense. I have the figures before me at the moment, and they show that more than 50 per cent. of those in the north-west agreed that they should have a referendum. [Interruption.] No, the figures are right. They are aggregated for the region itself. It is true that a vigorous campaign was conducted in Cheshire, but, as I see from the county council network that I referred to, even the

37
people in those areas wanted to have a referendum. We have conducted this on a regional basis, and I have given the judgment to the House. How different groups in a region voted can be seen in the report, and overall it justifies my decision to hold a referendum.
Dr. Ashok Kumar: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement. He has had a lifelong commitment to regional government, and this is a great day for all of us, certainly for Labour Members. However, may I tell him that if regional government is to succeed, the two tiers of local authority have to work and campaign together for a speedy resolution? I have bitter memories of what happened in the 1990s, when county and district councils clashed with one another and there was fighting left, right and centre. Will he instruct local authorities to work together and co-operate for the greater good?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions advises me that he has written today to urge councils to do that—and I say, "Good luck," because we all know the difficulties of telling individuals with strongly held views about these matters what they should do. I hope that they will have respect for one another's arguments. The yes campaigns and the no campaigns will cut across political parties—I am sure that they have done so already—and moneys can be available through political funding, although limitations are placed on that. We will now start consulting on that, and I will keep the House informed about how such things can be achieved. I hope that the issues will be debated with good humour, because the decisions are worth taking.
Miss Anne McIntosh: The Deputy Prime Minister will be aware that the population of North Yorkshire accounts for 11 per cent. of the total region of Yorkshire and the Humber. In the event that the people of North Yorkshire vote to keep the county council and the district, and against a regional Parliament, will their views as expressed in the referendum be respected?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The results will be determined in the regions, but, as I have already said, North Yorkshire council has asked for the referendum.
Mr. Colin Challen: From the perspective of a Member representing Leeds, which is the economic and enterprise capital of Yorkshire and the Humber—if not of the north—I welcome my right hon. Friend's statement. What hangs the three areas together is that they have the highest levels of deprivation in England, which, I suspect, is why there is such a high demand for more powers for the regions. I will argue the case in the campaign for a yes vote, on the grounds that if we have regional assemblies we will have a greater say in getting resources from Government. Does my right hon. Friend approve of that line?
The Deputy Prime Minister: I thank my hon. Friend for his kind remarks. As for his last comment, I have always believed strongly that the Government of this country is too centralised, and that the regions have not had sufficient powers in such matters. If regions can get
38
together, they form a tremendous countervailing power to decisions made by central Government. Why should that not happen? All too often, regions have no influence in some of those decisions, and I believe that elected authorities of this kind will have that effect. I note what my hon. Friend says about his approach during the campaign, and I note further his bid, which is the first that I have heard since my announcement, for Leeds—a powerful and prosperous city in my area of Yorkshire—to be the centre not only of Yorkshire but of the north. I leave him to argue that out with his colleagues.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: I have had more in common with Derbyshire county council since this Government were elected than I ever did when I sat on the Government Benches. Will the Deputy Prime Minister tell me what will be the impact of his announcement on the Peak District national park, which has parts of four regions within its borders: the east midlands, the west midlands, the north-west and Yorkshire? Today he has announced referendums in some parts of it but not in other parts. What impact will that have on the national park?
The Deputy Prime Minister: To be honest, I do not fully know what will be the effect of that. Clearly, some of the regional areas cross boundaries—in the Thames gateway area, three or four regional development agencies are actively involved, and they come together, co-operate and make decisions. The referendums will be conducted within the boundaries that exist. If there is to be a vote in one region, that will be the case regardless of whether the dale extends into another region. I am afraid that I cannot offer any further comfort about what will be the consequences. I do not think that the impact will be great, but the main consequence will be that the people of the area make a choice.
Mr. David Borrow: I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. I am particularly pleased that he has ignored the comments of the county councils in the north-west, which, to a certain extent, speak with a vested interest because of the element of conservatism in local government that is always resistant to change. On my real question, much discussion took place during the passage of the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill about the White Paper and the terms of it that did not form part of the legislation. That White Paper will inform part of the Act that will set up the regional assemblies. We have not yet had the opportunity to debate the fine detail of the White Paper, and much criticism has been made of many of its provisions. Will my right hon. Friend assure me that once the people of the north-west have voted for a regional assembly, there will be an opportunity for the House to decide exactly what will be the terms and powers of that regional assembly?
The Deputy Prime Minister: The obvious point is that the Bill will come through this House, and the agreement of the House will be necessary before we can proceed with it. I hope, however, that there will be an opportunity to discuss some of the draft Bill before the referendum, for which a number of Members have asked, and which we will do our best to provide.

39
Ultimately, however, none of the proposals can be effected without the permission of the House and discussion by Members of the House.
Mr. George Osborne: This morning on the radio, the Minister for Local Government and the Regions said that if the turnout was derisory in one of the referendums, the plans would not go ahead. Given that in the north-west there was a turnout of 0.0005 per cent. in the soundings exercise, which the Deputy Prime Minister describes as a high level of interest, what is his definition of derisory? [Interruption.]
The Deputy Prime Minister: I think that somebody said that it would be two Tory MPs in the Chamber. Members will recognise that if there is a derisory turnout of the kind that the hon. Gentleman is talking about—zero, zero, zero something—it would be difficult to say that that represented the will of the people. I do not think that that will happen, but we will have to make a judgment on the basis of the propositions that are put to us, and how many participated in the vote. Clearly, putting a figure on that at the moment would be influential, but we do not propose to do so. I believe, however, that many people will take part in the vote. They want the vote, as we found in the consultation exercise, and I have no doubt that an awful lot of people will vote.
Mr. Stephen Hepburn: If regional government becomes a reality in the north, will the Deputy Prime Minister give an assurance that no powers will be transferred to it from existing metropolitan authorities?
The Deputy Prime Minister: My hon. Friend must be aware, if he considers the current housing strategy, that in some cases we are transferring powers—from counties, for example. We have to make a judgment and the Bill will contain exact provisions for what we will do, so I ask him to wait for that.

Points of Order
4.30 pm
Sir Patrick Cormack: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. On Friday, I raised with Madam Deputy Speaker the Government's extraordinary behaviour on Thursday and the way in which the abolition of the office of Lord Chancellor was announced. Madam Deputy Speaker was very kind and said that she understood the concern in the House, which was fairly widespread. In view of the fact that there is a statement in the House of Lords today, I had hoped that the new Leader of the House would make a statement today to explain precisely the implications of the decisions and what the new Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland—if there are such creatures—are to do. Will you, Mr. Speaker, make inquiries on behalf of Back Benchers of all parties to find out whether the Government will send a Minister to tell us precisely what they are seeking to do?
Mr. Graham Allen: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall reply to the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), which might save the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) from raising his concerns.
I thank the hon. Member for South Staffordshire for giving me warning of his point of order. The statement in the other place is about the chairing of proceedings in the other place and no other matter. I share his concerns and I have been in touch with Downing street to ask that a statement be made. The Prime Minister has agreed to that and a statement will be made on Wednesday. I am sure that that will help the hon. Member for Nottingham, North.
Mr. Allen: You have exactly answered the points that I was going to make, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind that we will get a statement from the Prime Minister, he might talk about what is happening regarding the Lord Chancellor. However, there is a matter of more immediate urgency for the House and hon. Members. We now have a Secretary of State for Transport and a Secretary of State for Scotland in the same person. We have a Leader of the House and a Secretary of State for Wales in the same person. When we table questions to the Secretary of State for Wales and the Secretary of State for Transport, may we also table questions on their responsibilities as Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Scotland, or will they be two different people when they come before the House to answer those questions? Will they wear a form of identification to let us know the capacity in which questions are being answered—as the Secretary of State for Wales or the Leader of the House, for example? Perhaps the Secretary of State for Wales could wear a daffodil and the Secretary of State for Scotland could put a thistle in his jacket so that there could be proper

41
identification of their roles and responsibilities at any time because, obviously, the public do not know and we will not know.
Mr. Speaker: I say to the hon. Gentleman that there is often no need to wear a thistle or any other emblem; the accent usually helps. Being familiar with Scottish questions, he knows that there is always a different slot for Scottish questions and Transport questions. I think that that practice will continue.
As I said, I know of the concerns of the Leader of the Opposition and members of the shadow Cabinet. I have expressed those concerns to the Prime Minister and I hope that he will be able to answer such questions when he makes his statement on Wednesday.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Given the exceptional constitutional impertinence of the Prime Minister last week and the track record of incompetence that the Government have shown in all matters relating to constitutional reform, will you ensure that the Prime Minister is aware that when he comes to the House on Wednesday, he should expect to answer all questions relating to whether he consulted all those that his constitutional duties require?
Mr. Speaker: I feel that the hon. Gentleman's point will be on the record.
Miss Anne McIntosh: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. The issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) is urgent. We have Transport questions tomorrow. Transport is devolved for certain issues but not for others. We may want to question the Secretary of State for Scotland on Scottish planning matters that relate to airport policy. However, tomorrow the Secretary of State for Transport—the very same person—is appearing presumably to answer questions on transport. Will it be in order for him to answer the full remit of questions that fall within the same person's brier?
Mr. Speaker: The cares of tomorrow are for another day. We worry about them then.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is the second time that the House has had to wait for the Prime Minister's convenience for him to make a statement to the House. Following the G8 summit and the shambles of last week, we have to wait until there is a happy coincidence between when he has to make a statement and when he has to be here to answer Prime Minister's questions. Is it really a satisfactory state of affairs for this House of
42
Commons to have to wait for Ministers to make a statement? Should they not come here at the first opportunity?
Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman trusts me on this matter, it is my understanding that Wednesday is the first opportunity for the statement. There are matters to which the Prime Minister must attend tomorrow. I shall not go into those, but they are genuine and concern long-standing engagements. I made the request because I wanted the House to have a statement from the Prime Minister, and it will be on Wednesday.
Mr. John Bercow: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. It was the source first of stupefaction and then of some merriment when early on in his statement the Deputy Prime Minister advised the House that the Government were completing the process of House of Lords reform. Does he know something that we do not, or are you, Mr. Speaker, privy to an imminent announcement on this important matter of which others are so far ignorant?
Mr. Speaker: That is a possibility, but it is not for me to worry about.
Sir Patrick Cormack: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to you for intervening this morning. Can you assure the House that you will allow questions to the Prime Minister on the wide-ranging statement to run for a fairly long time on Wednesday?
Mr. Speaker: If the next motion is agreed to, it will be for the Chairman of Ways and Means to decide, and he will have heard what the hon. Gentleman said.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the House is extremely grateful to you for telling us that you made that approach to the Prime Minister. In the past, of course, Speakers have been rather reluctant to talk about their exchanges with the Prime Minister, but clearly, from time to time, you are minded to approach the Prime Minister on behalf of the House. That being so, would it be proper for us as Back Benchers on occasion to approach you in order that you might approach the Prime Minister on our collective behalf?
Mr. Speaker: I am always very approachable.
Sir Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I apologise to you and the House for my somewhat exuberant behaviour a little earlier? I think, as you saw, I was very exercised by the matter raised by the Deputy Prime Minister. I do apologise.
Mr. Speaker: That is understandable.

Speaker's Absence
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 18th June to receive the honorary degree of Doctor of the University of Glasgow.—[Ms Bridget Prentice.]
4.38 pm
Mr. Eric Forth: On the face of it, the motion may seem to be a routine matter but, happily, such items occur so rarely that it is worth the House pausing for a moment to consider its full implications. The motion covers the Speaker's role, the arrangements that can be made for the Speaker's absence and, as in this case, the timing and duration of that absence.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Before my right hon. Friend goes on, I point out another consideration: our desire that the Speaker should not be away too long.
Mr. Forth: I hope to touch on that later in my remarks, if my right hon. and learned Friend will permit me.
When I saw the resolution, what attracted my attention immediately was the reference to the university of Glasgow. On this occasion, and I do not often have the pleasure of saying this in the House, I speak as a Glaswegian and as an alumnus of the university of Glasgow. It therefore gives me double pleasure, Mr. Speaker, to see that you are being honoured on Wednesday 18 June by my alma mater. I glanced at your entry in "Who's Who", just to check your Glaswegian credentials, not that they were ever in any doubt.
You went, Mr. Speaker, to St. Patrick's boys school in Glasgow, which is not, sadly, the school that I went to, although it is not a million miles away. You then served as an AUEW shop steward at Rolls-Royce in Hillington. That is not Hillingdon, which is of course part of London, but Hillington, which is also known to me. You then had a distinguished career in this House, including a 10-year spell as the Chairman of the Scottish Grand Committee. Before that, of course, you had the honour of being a councillor in the Balornock ward in Glasgow from 1974 to 1979.
I say all that because it relates directly to the motion, referring as it does to the honour that the university of Glasgow will do you on Wednesday 18 June. Lest anyone had any doubt about the reason for your requesting leave of absence from the House, we are already beginning to see the kernel of the connections, which you personify, between the House and the great city of Glasgow. I hope that none of my right hon. and hon. Friends will be in any doubt as to the honour not only that Glasgow does us but that you, as our Speaker, do the university. This is a happy coincidence and a two-way process of respect being shown by the university and city of Glasgow.
Mr. John Bercow: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I yield to no one in my admiration for the excellence of the academic institution of Glasgow university, notwithstanding the fact that my right hon. Friend
44
happens to be a graduate of it. Does he agree, however, that thoroughly worthy though the honour is, and timely though its conferral in the course of your speakership, Mr. Speaker, might be, it is a trifle inconsiderate, not to say maladroit, of the university to hold the ceremony on the occasion of Prime Minister's questions, which might, as a result, be slightly less orderly than it otherwise would be?
Mr. Forth: My hon. Friend, as ever, anticipates a later part of my analysis, but I do not want to rush into that. I think that he would be disappointed if I did not stick to at least some coherence in my speech. I do not want to leap about because although my hon. Friend would be able to follow my logic without any effort, it might cause some Labours Members to struggle a bit.
Having glanced on the Glaswegian aspect of the motion, I am struck by the fact that the House must pause for a moment to consider—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I have to leave the Chair; I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am very touched by his remarks, but when I was at Rolls-Royce in Hillington, I only had to ask the foreman for a day off. [Laughter.]
Mr. Forth: I thought that we should then go on to consider, because it is relevant to the motion, the great responsibilities placed on the Speaker. I shall then risk, and it is a risk, touching on the delicate relationship between the Speaker and the Deputy Speakers, including yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Crispin Blunt: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the Glasgow connection, has it not crossed his mind that he is not going up to Glasgow on Wednesday because of his former membership of the Communist party? Will he confirm that, although his background is similar, Mr. Speaker does not share that in common with my right hon. Friend?
Mr. Forth: Mr. Speaker and I share many things in our background, including the fact that we were both raised in tenement buildings in Glasgow. I think that I am also right that Mr. Speaker's father and mine were both members of the Merchant Navy. We therefore have many things in common, but although I indeed stood as a Communist candidate in my school days, I suspect that Mr. Speaker had a much more respectable youth, which is probably why he is where he is, and I am where I am.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: Does my right hon. Friend not agree that the doctorate to be conferred on Mr. Speaker by the university of Glasgow is a great deal more respectable than the doctorate in English that our late, lamented colleague, Sir Frederic Bennett, received from the university of Istanbul? Is Mr. Speaker's degree not a more appropriate mark of affection and esteem for the House?
Mr. Forthrose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I do not believe that the scope of the motion allows us to discuss the general question of the conferment of degrees on Members of the House.
Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have tried to focus, as you know, very much on the Glaswegian aspects of the motion.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Before my right hon. Friend leaves the conferment of degrees in Glasgow, is he aware that this Wednesday at the same time as Mr. Speaker is honoured in Glasgow, a similar honour will be conferred on Mr. Gus O'Donnell, the spin doctor for the last Conservative Government before 1997?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am assured that that lies entirely outside the scope of this matter.
Mr. Forth: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Sir Patrick Cormack: As Wednesday is Waterloo day, is Mr. Speaker to be escorted by a guard of honour from Scottish regiments?
Mr. Forth: I am sure that it would greatly help the House if we had further particulars of the ceremony in which Mr. Speaker will participate. However, perhaps other colleagues can help because, sadly, I have not had time to research the nature of the ceremony or its appropriateness.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend will know that the former Lord Chancellor attended the university of Glasgow, so perhaps Mr. Speaker may wish to ask him whether he would like to go to Glasgow too so that he can get an honorary degree as a small consolation for being peremptorily discharged.
Mr. Forth: Would that I had influence on such matters. Sadly, I have not been approached by my alma mater, but I am delighted that Mr. Speaker has. Whether the former Lord Chancellor deserves any recognition by his alma mater is entirely a matter of judgment. My right hon. and learned Friend has described it as a compensatory gesture, but that is further than I would like to go.
Mr. David Cameron: Has my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) not hit the nail on the head, and pointed to the dangers of Mr. Speaker going away, given that the Lord Chancellor, who performs the duties of Speaker in the other place, was peremptorily dismissed? Is it not a risk for anyone occupying a post more than several hundred years old to leave Westminster as they may be labelled a member of the forces of conservatism and treated in a similar fashion? Would not Mr. Speaker be better advised to stay at home?
Mr. Forth: I suspect that my hon. Friend has trailed the speech that he wants to make. There is a legitimate analysis to be made of Mr. Speaker's request, given the statement being made as we speak in another place. We may want to look at the risk that he runs in any prolonged or even brief absence from the House, given the Government's mood about Officers presiding over parliamentary Chambers. However, that is a matter for my hon. Friend, not me.
Mr. John Redwood: Did my right hon. Friend not notice that Mr. Speaker seemed very relaxed when this matter came up for debate? Should we not have a fount of good will towards Mr. Speaker on this
46
of all days, as he has stood up for the rights and liberties of this House and insisted on a statement from the Prime Minister? Will my right hon. Friend take that into account when thinking about requests for leave of absence?
Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I will touch on that later in my remarks, but just to give a hint of the argument that I might want to employ, it is the absence of Mr. Speaker on Wednesday 18 June that might cause us some concern. He made a magnificent gesture today in defending the rights of the House and effectively summoning the Prime Minister, and we may not have that at our disposal on Wednesday.
Were there to be by Wednesday a continuation of the undoubted constitutional crisis that we are now suffering, the burden might fall on your shoulders, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not want to drag you into this unnecessarily, but it may be unavoidable to touch on your role, because during Mr. Speaker's absence you will in almost every sense of the word be an able substitute for him. I shall return to that later.
Mr. Julian Brazier: On the way into the Palace of Westminster there is the mural of Sir Thomas More as a young Speaker defying the King's man in the demand for money without debate, so there is a precedent going back a long way for denying the Lord Chancellor, who was then the Head of the King's Government too. Given the fact that the Lord Chancellor has been threatened, as others mentioned, and that, as my right hon. Friend said, something of a constitutional precedent has been set by the Speaker demanding that the Prime Minister come to the House, is it not a good occasion to reflect that we need the Speaker here, and to consider whether in future there may be occasions when the House might ask the Speaker not to leave the premises?
Mr. Forth: That is a matter for judgment on each occasion, and the House will have to make its judgment because the motion—I think I am right in saying—as well as being debatable is votable, and it is possible for the House to vote not to give Mr. Speaker leave of absence, as the motion requests.
I shall argue, if I am allowed to proceed—I have only got into my introductory remarks—that on this occasion we should give leave of absence to Mr. Speaker, not just because of the pride that we must all feel in the honour being done to him, and not just because of my personal involvement as a Glaswegian, but because on this occasion we might want to test the waters, as it were, to see whether we can manage without Mr. Speaker even for a day, and even for a day as important as Wednesday will be, as I hope to point out.
Mr. Hogg: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we would all be much more likely to agree that the Speaker should go away for a day if we got an assurance from those on the Government Front Bench that there will be no attempt to mount a coup against the Speaker in his absence, as there was against the Lord Chancellor?
Mr. Forth: That would be helpful.
At this point, it would be only courteous of me if I welcomed the new Deputy Leader of the House to his place. He is most welcome. I only regret that he did not

47
seek to catch Mr. Speaker's eye at the beginning of the debate in order to set out the reasons for the motion. It is, of course, in the name of his right hon. Friend, that bi-cephalous man, the Secretary of State for Wales and Leader of the House, who sadly is not with us. His deputy, I am sure, would have ably moved the motion and, I hope, will equally ably reply to the debate. He might then be able to give my right hon. and learned Friend the assurance that he sought. I hope that he will.
Mr. Bercow: I am grateful, once again, to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I am, as he knows, a person of generous heart and public spirit, but I am highly sceptical whether the case has yet been made for the Speaker to be absent for a day. It could be constitutionally perilous if that were to happen. In trying to assess the pros and cons of the argument, in which respect I know my right hon. Friend would wish to assist me, may I ask him the rather prosaic question whether the university of Glasgow has considered holding the important ceremony on a non-sitting day?
Mr. Forth: That raises an interesting and relevant point, which is typical of my hon. Friend, concerning eminent and ancient institutions such as my alma mater, the university of Glasgow. Happily, it was founded in the 15th century, so one would have thought it had been around long enough to understand the nuances involved in inviting someone as eminent as Mr. Speaker, and I should add, as it is relevant to the answer that I am trying to give, that my degree is indeed in politics and economics.
One would therefore have thought that the department of politics at the university might have advised it of the inadvisability of inviting Mr. Speaker to attend the ceremony while the House was sitting.
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. He has mentioned a very important point about the university of Glasgow—his alma mater. Does he know whether Wednesday's ceremony will be a special one-off event for Mr. Speaker or part of a wider jamboree to which other people have been invited to receive honorary degrees? If it is the latter, it would be difficult to cancel the event. However, if there is to be a unique, bespoke ceremony for Mr. Speaker, his argument that the university might show some flexibility could be more convincing.
Mr. Forth: It certainly would not be a jamboree. That is certain, as the university of Glasgow does these things properly. However, my hon. Friend makes an important point. While this short debate is going on, one of my hon. Friends might seek further particulars from the university as to the nature of the ceremony itself. That would help to set in context what Mr. Speaker will be expected to do when he is in Glasgow and in whose company he may find himself when he is given the honour.
Mr. George Foulkes: It is, of course, technically possible for the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues to continue debating
48
the motion in this so-called hilarious fashion until 10 pm, which would mean that proceedings on the Licensing Bill continued until 4.30 in the morning. While that sounds clever, does it really enhance the reputation and dignity of this House?
Mr. Forth: I hope that idle Labour Members are not already thinking about when they can leave the building, although it sounds as if they might be doing so. This debate will continue for as long as we wish and while we remain in order, or indeed until the Government are unwise enough to seek a closure. That option is always available to them, although I would not advise that they take it on this occasion. If the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that a matter that features on the Order Paper and is available for debate somehow need not or should not be debated, that would give the lie to the attitude of all too many Labour Members, as these days, on the Government Benches, they do not believe that this House should exercise its proper responsibilities in a proper way.
Mr. Foulkes: Quite the reverse. I agree that we should exercise our responsibilities. We should also exercise our judgment and discretion.
Mr. Forth: That is exactly what I am trying to do.
Mr. John Taylor: In view of the fact that my right hon. Friend's alma mater understands the historical proprieties in these matters, and bearing in mind the analogy of the state opening, would he consider it appropriate to ask the university whether we may have a hostage pending Mr. Speaker's safe return?
Mr. Forth: I am very happy to offer myself as that hostage on this occasion, as a graduate and alumnus.
Mr. Soames: My right hon. Friend has been speculating about what may happen during the ceremony, and I hope that one of my hon. Friends will seek to contact the university to find out. However, does he agree that there is a distinct possibility that Mr. Speaker will be invited to make a speech in Latin? That is indeed a task of a high order for anyone. Does he agree that, on this particular occasion, it would be appropriate for the House to be informed about Mr. Speaker's exact duties while he is away from us?
Mr. Forth: I think that I have already conceded that point. In my day—I graduated in 1966—a large part of such ceremonies was conducted in Latin, and my degree certificate is, appropriately, in Latin as well. Sadly, I am not now sufficiently in touch with the university to know whether it has undergone that ghastly modernisation process so beloved of the Government and their supporters and changed the proceedings from Latin to English.
It would be useful to inquire of the university about that before we go much further.
Mr. Hogg: As regards the possibility that the Speaker will have to make a speech in Latin, would my right hon. Friend respectfully request a translation on behalf of the House, so that we know what he says?
Mr. Forth: I am surprised that my right hon. and learned Friend would require a translation—I should

49
have thought that he is fluent in most of the classical languages—but that is not an unreasonable request. I hope that it will have been taken into consideration, even at this early stage of the debate.
I want briefly to consider the role of the Speaker to enable us to judge how far it might be compromised by his absence. I turned first to that source to which we always turn—namely, the Library. It has produced an excellent factsheet on Mr. Speaker, which says:
"The direction and guidance the House receives from its … (Speaker) is central to the House's whole way of life."
One could not put it better than that. It neatly sums up the centrality of the role of Mr. Speaker as far as the House is concerned, and gives us some cause for concern as to how on earth we will manage if he is to be absent even for the one day that is mentioned in the motion.
"Erskine May", to which we all resort on these occasions, because it is our guide and our bible on such matters, says, on page 188:
"The Speaker's functions fall into two main categories. On the one hand the Speaker is the spokesman or representative of the House in its relations with the Crown, the House of Lords and other authorities and persons outside Parliament."
We should pause there for a moment, because that is a matter that is currently at the forefront of everybody's mind. The mention of
"the Crown, the House of Lords and other authorities and persons outside Parliament"
reminds us of the developments that are rapidly taking place, even as we speak, in another place. Given the rapidity with which events are unfolding, the question arises as to whether Mr. Speaker will be required to be here on the day after tomorrow to carry out the responsibilities adumbrated in "Erskine May". It goes on to say:
"On the other hand the Speaker presides over the debates of the House of Commons and enforces the observance of all rules for preserving order in its proceedings."
What we will have to judge—I shall return to this later—is how far the absence of the Speaker in any way compromises those very important responsibilities that are laid upon him.
Mr. Hogg: One of the Speaker's responsibilities is to safeguard the rights of Back Benchers. I think that my right hon. Friend will be the first to agree that this Government tramples on those rights. Is not that a reason why we should view the departure of the Speaker, albeit only for a day, with considerable concern?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the right hon. and learned Gentleman develops his argument too far, I should tell him—I suppose that I may have to declare an interest—that Standing Order 3(2) indicates that in the absence of the Speaker,
"the Chairman of Ways and Means shall perform the duties and exercise the authority of the Speaker in relation to all proceedings of this House".
Mr. Forth: I am most grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You are hinting at delicate territory. I hope that we will not be forced to make any kind of judgment about whether we would regard the absence of the
50
Speaker as being in any way detrimental to the House, given that you would then act wholly and fully in his place.
I want to touch on one or two of the Speaker's other responsibilities. In relation to the Lords, "Erskine May" says, on page 189:
"The chief function of the Speaker in relation to the House of Lords is to consider bills brought from that House and Lords amendments to Commons bills to see whether they infringe the financial privileges of the Commons".
I am sure that you will confirm, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that as Chairman of Ways and Means you will exercise in all matters the full powers that Mr. Speaker would otherwise discharge. However, the House will want an assurance—perhaps it can come only from you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, even in the light of the Standing Order that you quoted—that there is no responsibility, role or power exercised by Mr. Speaker that you cannot exercise in his absence.
We want that reassurance because there may be circumstances in which it could become relevant. I would welcome your guidance on that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can give the right hon. Gentleman that assurance. In the absence of the Speaker, if that is approved by the House, the Chairman of Ways and Means has the full authority of the Speaker in all the matters that might be of concern to the right hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he does not question the fact that a Chairman of Ways and Means would behave no less impartially than Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Forth: Of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sure that we are greatly reassured by what you have said. It may even allow me to truncate my remarks, and you will, therefore, have been doubly helpful to the House.
One of my hon. Friends took the trouble to look at one of those horrible website things and get some information, which is headed "The University of Glasgow". Under the title, "University of Glasgow confers honorary degrees", it states:
"The University will confer honorary degrees on seven distinguished men and women at the annual Commemoration Day ceremony on Wednesday 18 June."
It lists those who will receive honorary degrees. They include a Mr. Augustine Thomas O'Donnell, permanent secretary at Her Majesty's Treasury; Dr. Sheena Elizabeth McDonald, political journalist; and Keenan Smart, head of a natural history unit. Of course, it includes our Speaker,
"the right hon. Michael Martin, Speaker of the House of Commons and MP for Glasgow Springburn."
We can be reassured that our Speaker is in mixed but appropriate company.
However, the website does not go into details about the nature of the ceremony and the answer to the question that has exercised one or two colleagues about the language in which at least part of it will be conducted. Perhaps we could request further particulars and revert to the matter later in our analysis.
You have gone some way, Mr. Deputy Speaker, towards allaying any fears about the full power and discretion that you and your fellow Deputy Speakers might have in the absence of Mr. Speaker. I hope that

51
any nervousness about his lack of availability on 18 June is rapidly being dispelled. However, there is another consideration. Let us consider the business for Wednesday 18 June. As one of my hon. Friends has already pointed out, Wednesday is now the day on which we have questions to the Prime Minister. However, this Wednesday, we also have questions to the Deputy Prime Minister. Questions will be asked to the two most senior members of the Administration on Wednesday.
Mr. Hogg: My right hon. Friend must not overlook the fact that Wednesday is not an usual day because the Prime Minister—as I understand it, at Mr. Speaker's request—will make a vital statement on the constitutional changes.
Mr. Forth: Indeed, he will. Wednesday will not be an ordinary parliamentary day—if there is such a thing. I have always resisted the suggestion that there could be an ordinary parliamentary day. Every day in the House of Commons and in Parliament is an extraordinary day.
Mr. Foulkes: The right hon. Gentleman borders on being disrespectful to the Deputy Speaker. I have been present on a previous Wednesday when the Deputy Speaker took the Chair and did so admirably. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the disgraceful slur that he puts on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Forth: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman, in his seniority and maturity, remains so feisty. I welcome his participation in this little debate. I hope that he wants to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to give us his thoughts on the matters as the debate develops. After all, we are on the initial canter through the subject. I hope that there is much more to come.
Wednesday 18 June is a critical day in the parliamentary timetable when the House can be unruly—or boisterous, to put it more neutrally.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, I know that you will be able to handle matters with your usual aplomb, expertise and poise, but in the event that you were not available on Wednesday—you might be indisposed; who knows?—that burden would fall on one of the other Deputy Speakers who are not as experienced in these matters as you. That would be a challenge both to them and to the House, to which I am sure they would rise magnificently—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman should be quite careful in the words that he is using. He is verging on an appraisal—or indeed, a criticism—of those whom the House has been good enough to choose as the occupants of the Chair. I am sure that he would not wish to do that.
Mr. Forth: Of course not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Any perusal of Hansard will show that I had no such intention and that I was choosing my words pretty carefully. I accept what you have said, however, and I shall move on. I shall bring my remarks to a conclusion,
52
because I want others to be able to participate, although it has been generously and helpfully pointed out that we have until 10 pm to complete this debate. There is therefore no need for it to be hurried or truncated in any way whatsoever. This matter can be properly dealt with, rather than being subject to any of the artificial restrictions of time to which we have become rather too used.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: It occurs to me that the level of excitement might reach such a pitch on Wednesday that the Speaker might not wish to be away. He has always been very courteous and polite to me, and has often called me to speak. He probably feels the same obligations to the good people of Glasgow who have so kindly invited him to be there. Perhaps he would rather be here but, far from wishing to cause offence, has duly accepted—or hopes to accept—the invitation to go and receive his award. Perhaps, given the importance of what the Prime Minister will have to say on Wednesday—considering the damage that has been done to our constitution and to the office of the Lord Chancellor—the Speaker would rather be here. I wonder what my right hon. Friend thinks about that?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should say to the hon. Gentleman—and to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) before he is tempted to answer—that the Speaker is always prepared to submit himself to the judgment of the House.
Mr. Forth: Indeed, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The only thing that I want to say to my hon. Friend is that I am sure that Mr. Speaker takes the view that this is an honour not just for him but for the House, and that we should gladly accept it as such. It is in that spirit that, having considered the matter somewhat carefully, I have reached the judgment that on this occasion the House should give Mr. Speaker leave of absence, as the motion requests, so that he can receive the honour being done by the university of Glasgow and so that we may, in our different ways, bask in the reflected glory and pay our respect to the university. It is in that spirit that I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be happy to approve the motion.
5.13 pm
Mr. Douglas Hogg: This debate, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has rightly initiated, revolves around two themes. The first, which wish to develop at a little length, is our respect for Mr. Speaker, and how glad we are that the university of Glasgow is paying this tribute to him. The second is our concern that he should not be away too long, partly because, in his absence, the Government Front Bench might begin to take liberties with the rights of Members, and partly because he might be the subject of a coup. The House will wish to consider those two points in the context of this motion.
Michael Fabricant: In the context of a coup, it might be argued that such a thing would not be possible because, as my right hon. and learned Friend will be aware, a Speaker can be elected only at the beginning of each Parliament. Is my right hon. and

53
learned Friend similarly aware, however, that this is agreed through the Standing Orders of the House dated 22 March 2001—Standing Orders Nos. 1, 1A and 1B—which could be overturned if a motion to that effect were presented to the House on Wednesday morning?
Mr. Hogg: Indeed, I was aware of that, and I rather think that something similar is happening in the other place even as we speak. Last week, we were told that the post of Lord Chancellor had been abolished and that the noble and learned Lord Falconer was going to be something different, yet the following day there he was in wig and gown, sitting on the Woolsack. It was discovered, suddenly, that the post of Lord Chancellor could not be abolished.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is going well beyond the scope of the motion. Nothing can happen in this House during the Speaker's absence on Wednesday that cannot be taken care of under Standing Orders.
Mr. Hogg: I was indeed led astray by the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant). I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has been a Member long enough to know when he might be tempted into being led astray. He should not do it.
Mr. Hogg: That is why I was apologising to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I recognised the fact that I should not have been led astray, and I was very contrite. I know you of old, and I know perfectly well that you like me to stand in sackcloth and ashes. I sinned and I apologised, although I was just a trifle surprised when you abused me for doing so. Well, I will overlook the matter on this occasion.
If I may, I shall revert to the main thrust of my remarks, and there are two bits to it. The first is to caution the Speaker against being away too long—not for the technical reasons on which we have just been trespassing, but for the more general reason that in many important respects he has safeguarded the rights of Back Benchers. While I would not for a moment suggest that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and your colleagues would not seek to do likewise—that is not the thrust of what I want to say—sometimes the authority of the Speaker as such is necessary to safeguard our rights. Therefore we do not want Mr. Speaker to be away from the House longer than need be.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps I should remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman of the terms of the motion, in that the House has one question, and one question only, to decide: whether Mr. Speaker should be given leave of absence on the sitting day of 18 June.
Mr. Hogg: That is exactly why I am welcoming the fact that the motion provides for an absence of only one day. On subsequent occasions, such a motion might suggest that Mr. Speaker be absent on more than one day. I am speaking to the motion—namely, that he should be absent on only one day—and explaining why
54
it is so important that he be absent for only one day. He has used the authority of the Speaker's Chair in a number of important respects to safeguard the rights of Back Bench.
Mr. George Osborne: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that a good example of how Mr. Speaker has safeguarded the rights of Back Benchers is his asking the Prime Minister to come to the House on Wednesday to explain the reshuffle? That is a classic example of the role of the Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have already had to tell the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst that Standing Orders provide for there to be a substitute for the Speaker with all the same powers. It is to be hoped that they will be discharged in the same manner in defending the rights of Members of the House.
Mr. Hogg: I accept that of course, and I have no doubt that when you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and indeed your colleagues, are in the Chair, you will not seek to do otherwise. As I ventured to say, however, this matter is rather like Secretaries of State: sometimes the authority of the office, not just the authority of the person, is needed to impress other powers in the land. There is no doubt, if I might respectfully say so, that the fact that the Speaker qua Speaker made the request to the Prime Minister had an impact on No. 10.
I say that not in any way to belittle you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but it is a basic truth. That takes one, therefore, to a fundamental proposition: Mr. Speaker has, qua Speaker, done a number of things, in his personal capacity and with the authority of the Chair, to reinforce the rights of Back Benchers, which is why we do not want to see him gone for more than one day.
I think that I will not in any way trespass on the patience of the House if I identify some things that Mr. Speaker has done to safeguard the powers and privileges of Members and say why, therefore, we do not want to spare him. The first involves the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne). Mr. Speaker has, on occasion, impressed on Secretaries of State the importance of making all public statements on policy change to this House first, and not through leakage. His request to No. 10 today is a reflection of that.
You may not have been in the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you will have heard that the Deputy Prime Minister apologised earlier today for the leak in the weekend press as regards his statement.
That, I suggest, is one of the consequences of the action of the Speaker qua Speaker in deploring that habit. In that respect, the Speaker has been safeguarding our interests, rights and privileges.
Mr. Bercow: Given that the decision to award Mr. Speaker an honorary doctorate constitutes both a testimony to his meteoric rise to his present post and a comment on his excellent custodianship of the role of Speaker, does my right hon. and learned Friend not think that if the university of Glasgow were made aware of the significant anxiety, at least among Conservative Members, about Mr. Speaker's prospective absence—which might be reflected in the negativing of the

55
motion—the university would in all probability agree to rearrange the date? Might not that avenue be usefully explored?
Mr. Hogg: I do not think that the House would wish, in a cavalier fashion, to disappoint either the university or Mr. Speaker. It is clear that Mr. Speaker wishes to go to the university; otherwise we would not be debating the motion. I would not want to see Mr. Speaker disappointed, or the university disappointed. As we have been promised that Mr. Speaker will be away for only one day, I do not think I would adopt the course suggested by my hon. Friend.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Earlier, my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned the Deputy Prime Minister's apology for a leak to the weekend press of the statement that he made earlier. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that the announcement made at 6 pm on Thursday was in fact an announcement of a change in Government policy—of a new Government policy, indeed—and that, as such—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the hon. Gentleman is saying is well outside the scope of the motion.
Mr. Hogg: I take the hint, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall not respond to my hon. Friend's question, as I think you would say that I was out of order. I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me.
Michael Fabricant: Further to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—whose question was, of course, in order—is there not a danger that if the university of Glasgow thought the House believed it would be wrong for the Speaker to be absent on that day, the award of the degree per se might be jeopardised? If the degree were not awarded, would that not be to the detriment not just of the Speaker but of the House? After all, the awarding of a doctorate is not only a great privilege for the Speaker; it reflects well on this place.
Mr. Hogg: I agree with that. I think it would be a great pity if the university cast the doctorate into question for any reason. Not only is it an honour to the Speaker, and, as my hon. Friend says, an honour to the House, in a sense; it also stresses the integrity of the United Kingdom. In many ways, the integrity of the United Kingdom, by which I mean its unity, has been put at risk by the Government's policies. It is therefore rather cheering to observe the university of Glasgow recognising that there is in Mr. Speaker a proper recipient for an honour, and thus demonstrating the integrity and oneness of this realm.
I am afraid that I have been diverted, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I know that you like me to keep strictly in order, so I shall do my best to return to the main themes that I had in mind. As you will recall, I was saying that the Speaker qua Speaker, exercising his personal authority and influence, has done much to safeguard the rights of Back Benchers. One thing that he has done—if you will forgive me for saying so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it
56
is more difficult for Deputy Speakers to do this—is grant emergency questions. Emergency questions, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is absolutely no difference between the responsibilities involved. If the Speaker is absent, the Chairman of Ways and Means exercises full responsibility and makes exactly the same judgments, based on the same criteria.
Mr. Hogg: I accept, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that there is no difference between the nominal powers of the Deputy Speaker and the Speaker. You will recall, though, from my point about what Mr. Speaker had done with regard to No. 10, that sometimes—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now trying to make too much of one particular point. There are absolutely no grounds for supposing that any occupant of the Chair would have taken any different decision on the basis of the advice available. It is a false argument—and the right hon. and learned Gentleman does not remain in order by suggesting it—that there is any division to be drawn between the Speaker and anyone else appointed by the House in the Speaker's place.
Mr. Hogg: I would in no way formally quarrel with what you are saying, Mr. Deputy Speaker. However, with your enormous experience of this place, you will know how the House prefers to see a Secretary of State rather than a Minister of State—and it applies even more in respect of an Under-Secretary—answering from the Dispatch Box. That is not to criticise the persons concerned, but to say that, for some purposes, the full authority of the office has to be deployed. Although it is perfectly true that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, possess all the nominal powers of Mr. Speaker, it remains the case that sometimes, however rarely, one needs the authority of the office as opposed to the formal powers of the function.
Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, when an approach is made qua Speaker to No. 10 or to a Department, it is surely made from the Speaker's office and the office itself carries that authority? In that light, surely it does not matter too much whether the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker is in charge?
Mr. Hogg: That is the point that Mr. Deputy Speaker is putting to me, and I accept it. When I think back to my days as a Minister, I was conscious—and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) would confirm it—that a request from the Secretary of State carried more weight than one from a Minister of State, even if the Minister of State in question happened to be my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal. It is sometimes necessary to deploy the full weight of the office.
Michael Fabricant: Surely my right hon. and learned Friend is not impugning the integrity of No. 10 Downing street! Surely he is not saying that it would need the weight of the Speaker, rather than the Deputy

57
Speaker acting qua Speaker, to take a rational decision. Surely he is not saying that Downing street would be swayed by such an action.
Mr. Hogg: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I am indeed saying precisely that, and I know that he will be shocked. Although I make no express or implied criticism of Mr. Speaker, Mr. Deputy Speaker and colleagues, I cannot be so generous to No. 10. I ask myself the question whether No. 10 is likely to be more embarrassed by refusing a request from Speaker qua Speaker than it would be by refusing one from the Deputy Speaker. We can make our own judgments about that, but many will believe that the authority of the office adds to the force of the request.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I should tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman that Mr. Speaker has ensured that No. 10 did give a response in respect of the particular day on which the Speaker's absence was to be debated. It seems to me that the point has been proved. In seeking to split the hairs of such judgments as I have made, the right hon. and learned Gentleman should know that, if he is worried that the Deputy Speaker does not possess the full authority of the Speaker, I may be tempted to exercise my authority in the use of Standing Orders to demonstrate that I do indeed have the fullest powers.
Mr. Hogg: I fully recognise that when a Member is not in order, you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, possess the full powers. That is why I hope that I have carefully remained in order. However, so that I do not trespass on your patience—I would not want to do that, Mr. Deputy Speaker—I have several other points that need to be made.
Mr. Bellingham: I do not wish to be pedantic, but does my right hon. and learned Friend believe that, in dealing with issues of grave urgency, Mr. Speaker himself is likely to telephone No. 10, or will discussions take place within the Speaker's Office? It was probably the Speaker's secretary who made the call, through the usual channels. It is the collective weight of the Speaker's office, including the Chairman of Ways and Means and the other Deputy Speakers, that adds the requisite weight in these circumstances.
Mr. Hogg: I do not wish to exhaust your patience, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I have a feeling that if I go into the detail of what happens in the Speaker's Office—I do not know, but I assume it is like a Secretary of State's office—you might say that I was trespassing too far. Indeed, your eyes seem to signal that that is the case. That being so, I am minded—if my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham) will forgive me—to move on to my next point. I shall skirt over the subject with some caution, because it goes to the prolixity of Members. Mr. Speaker, in person, has made clear his desire to ensure that Government Front Benchers do not go on too long, especially in their response to questions—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I cannot accept that as a point that is relevant to this debate. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman thinks back—as an assiduous
58
attender of the Chamber—he will realise that he has heard such exhortations from all the occupants of the Chair. I do not accept that as an argument relevant to this debate.
Mr. Hogg: I was making a slightly different point, and it goes to the authority of the office. Mr. Speaker himself—as you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be the first to acknowledge—has said to a number of Front Benchers, on both sides, "Too many questions and too many answers". That is a very good thing, too, and that is why we do not want Mr. Speaker to be away for too many days. He has put a curb on the mouths of Front Benchers on both sides, and that is a good thing, but it requires the weight of Mr. Speaker himself—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must correct the right hon. and learned Gentleman. That depends entirely on the Standing Orders and the way in which the occupant of the Chair, whoever it is, interprets them. I do not want the right hon. and learned Gentleman to pursue that line of argument.
Mr. John Gummer rose—
Mr. Hogg: I shall give way to my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Gummer: Perhaps I may assist you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and my right hon. and learned Friend on that point. But a fortnight ago, I had occasion to intervene to ask whether it was acceptable to have a guillotine that was so tight that the Minister was not able to finish explaining her amendment before we voted. The occupant of the Chair was one of the Deputy Speakers, and I was happy to be assured that the Speaker—spoken of as the office itself—would take seriously the issue that had been raised. That is an indication in this instance. However, it is right to say that if the Speaker were known not to be present for a period of time, the office itself would be significantly diminished.
Mr. Hogg: That is true, because—and I mean no disrespect to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—the Chairman of Ways and Means and his colleagues are the deputies of Mr. Speaker, and we do not want him to be away from the House more than he must. That is not a criticism of the occupant of the Chair, but a recognition that Mr. Speaker, qua Mr. Speaker, adds something extra to the proceedings of the House. However, I realise that you do not wish me to go on further about the matter of prolixity, Mr. Deputy Speaker, so I shall turn to the matter of the choice of amendments.
I was put in mind of the subject by what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said about the guillotines. I shall explain the relevance in a moment—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am afraid that I must rule the right hon. and learned Gentleman out of order if he wishes to discuss the powers of selection. That cannot be relevant to the absence of Mr. Speaker. Once again, the Standing Orders tell us that the Chairman of Ways and Means or other Deputy Speakers have the full powers of selection. Indeed, they are exercised on many occasions.
Mr. Hogg: I understand, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I would be the last person to challenge your ruling. I shall therefore move on.
Mr. Bercow: Leaving aside the issues of deterring prolixity—on which subject we have been admirably reassured by your good self, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and of the powers of selection, can I interest my right hon. and learned Friend in the relevance of the subject of the business on Wednesday, for it is to that day that the motion relates?
Does he think it a matter of legitimate concern to Members that although we are not scheduled to have a vote on that day, there will be an important debate on the Floor of the House on the European Union? Given the constitutional significance of that debate, is it entirely seemly that it should take place on a day on which the Speaker is absent?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That point is absolutely irrelevant. The authority of the Chair is such that whoever is occupying it can cope with any eventuality of that kind.
Mr. Hogg: I defer, of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to what you have just said, but I understand my hon. Friend's personal regret for the fact that Mr. Speaker will be away on Wednesday. My hon. Friend has a ten-minute Bill, and I know that he is anxious that Mr. Speaker should personally hear what he has to say on domestic violence. All speeches are, of course, addressed to the Chair.
Mr. Bercow: I am most grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for making that point. He has been my generous and unpaid consultant in so doing, for he knows that my natural self-effacement and reticence prevented me from making any reference to that important point.
Mr. Hogg: That is why I felt compelled to make my remark. I know that my hon. Friend is a very modest man who would not wish to draw attention to himself.
I shall turn to something slightly different, and to a point that is personal to the Speaker. Mr. Speaker represents a Scots constituency—Glasgow, Springburn. That, no doubt, is why he is to receive a doctorate, honoris causa, from the university of Glasgow. That gives Mr. Speaker a very special position in safeguarding the rights of English Members against oppression from Scottish Members.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Hogg: May I develop my argument, then I shall of course give way?
My point is becoming of particular importance now that a Secretary of State who represents a Scottish constituency has been put in charge of English health.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must not get himself into the position of appearing to question the impartiality of the Speaker in his relationship to any Member of the House.
Mr. Hogg: I was not, indeed, doing that.
Mr. Forth: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
Mr. Hogg: I shall, but I must first give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner).
Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
Mr. Foulkes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On five occasions that I have counted, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has said that he accepts your ruling, and has then gone on to challenge it in what he says. Since you are acting with all the powers of the Speaker, as you have told us on a number of occasions, is it not about time that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had the courtesy and grace to accept your rulings properly?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is my responsibility to try to keep to order within the terms laid down by the Standing Orders. I am seeking to do that. I have no doubt that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) will respect the judgments that I have made and that we will make progress.
Mr. Hogg: Indeed I will, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had I not done so, I feel confident that you would have been the first to tell me. Whenever you have indicated that I was trespassing rather overmuch on your patience, I have moved on.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It is not a matter of trespassing on my patience, but of stepping over the bounds of the Standing Orders of the House. That is the only thing of which I am guardian. My personal considerations are totally outwith the scope of the debate.
Mr. Hogg: I am deferring to your rulings on what is in or out of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Whenever I may have strayed out of order, you have been kind enough to indicate in the most courteous manner that I have done so, and I have, I hope, moved on properly to another subject so as not to run, in any way, the risk of incurring your displeasure.
Mr. Andrew Turner: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for giving way. He has mentioned that the degree will be conferred at the university of Glasgow, which, as we know, is in Scotland, and which is therefore some considerable distance from this place. My concern is that the terms of the motion may be impaired, or even contravened, if, for example, there were to be serious travel problems for Mr. Speaker on his return from Glasgow to England on Wednesday, or even the following day. He may not be able to get back—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman would have to get up a lot earlier in the morning to fool me on that point.
Mr. Hogg: The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight had not occurred to me, although, knowing British railways, it should have done. In the Government wind-ups, it would be extremely helpful if we could be told that a manuscript

61
amendment will be tabled to the motion, either today or to deal with the situation on Thursday, should it occur, to excuse Mr. Speaker for a further day against the possibility that rail strikes or other inauspicious circumstances may prevent his return on Thursday. That is an important point and I am ashamed to say that it had not occurred to me.
Mr. Forth: I may be able to help my right hon. and learned Friend on the question that he posed a moment ago as to the provenance of the honour that the university is doing Mr. Speaker. From my memory of the document that I saw a few moments ago, which was furnished by one of my hon. Friends but is now, sadly, with Hansard for the greater accuracy of the record, I believe that the citation referred to Mr. Speaker both in his capacity as Speaker of the House of Commons and as Member of Parliament for Glasgow, Springburn. There was a duality to the citation, which honoured Mr. Speaker in both regards. I hope that is helpful.
Mr. Hogg: Indeed, and it makes it even more important that we do nothing to put at risk the granting of that honour, so I shall support the motion, my reservations notwithstanding.
As I know that other right hon. and hon. Members want to speak, I shall draw my remarks to a conclusion simply by saying that the honour is both to the Speaker and also to the House. The House is pleased to see Mr. Speaker honoured in such a way, because he has done a lot to protect and preserve the rights of Back Benchers. It is a good thing that he is being honoured, yet at the same time we do not want to lose him for very long.
Mr. Bercow: I am extraordinarily grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend, who has been generous in giving way. Given the importance of this place and of the speeches made in it as a means whereby one colleague can persuade and, occasionally, even convert another, will my right hon. and learned Friend accept that, as a result both of the intellectual content of his speech and of his personal eloquence, I, a sceptic on the subject of the motion, am duly persuaded. There can be no greater tribute to the quality and power of my right hon. and learned Friend's mind and mouth.
Mr. Hogg: It goes without saying that I am deeply flattered by that observation. May I also express the hope that my hon. Friend will address the House, so that we can know in detail the reasons for his conversion?
Mr. George Osborne: I note in passing that my right hon. and learned Friend should be cautious of the conversions of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—my good friend.
To return briefly to an issue touched on by my right hon. and learned Friend a few moments ago—the possibility that the Speaker may not make it back for Thursday—given that the House has new hours and that we sit earlier on Thursdays, and the likelihood that the Speaker may be attending a dinner or similar occasion
62
held in his honour on Wednesday evening, will that not make him even more vulnerable to travel problems on his return to London?
Mr. Hogg: It certainly will, and I am sure that Members on the Treasury Bench would like to deal with such points when they make their respective wind-ups.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am not quite so persuaded as our hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), but the eloquence of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) has moved me considerably further towards support for the motion. He has been probing the extent of the likelihood that Mr. Speaker may not be able to return on the same day or indeed for the following sitting day. Has my right hon. and learned Friend given any thought to the possibility that, as a result of this honour and award from Glasgow, many other universities throughout the British isles will also want to honour our Speaker—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We are discussing a motion about the Speaker's absence on 18 June. Other occasions will be dealt with separately.
Mr. Hogg: That was entirely the point that I was about to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell): one can deal only with particular applications on their own merits. If there be another invitation for a particular day, the House will wish to discuss it, but now is not the time to do so, because that would be to stray out of order in a very serious manner.
I have said that the House owes Mr. Speaker the recognition that he has fought for the rights of Back Benchers, which is a serious point. It is also the reason why we do not want to spare him for more than a day. The rights of Back Benchers are under constant pressure from the Government and we want Mr. Speaker here permanently to fight for our rights.
Mr. Gummer: Has not my right hon. and learned Friend reached the position at which he can make that point and still be in order? The House chose Mr. Speaker, rather than any other possible candidate, because it saw him as being, of all people, the person most able in the circumstances to defend the rights of Back Benchers and, therefore, in that sense, the persona of the Speaker is separate—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has sufficient experience of the House to know that he is trespassing on very dangerous ground indeed.
Mr. Hogg: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to cut across your rulings, but the general point is that, sometimes, the authority of the office is necessary to carry the weight and influence that we require. I speak as a former Minister, conscious that the weight of the Secretary of State—rather than myself, as a Minister of State—was sometimes required. In the end, that is what I am saying: we do not want to spare Mr. Speaker from the House for more than one day, but we are pleased to do him honour.
5.46 pm
Michael Fabricant: We have already heard the question, "Can a Deputy Speaker act qua Speaker?" and I think that the answer is a resounding yes. We have already heard the question, "Should Mr. Speaker be away for one day or more than one day?" and we have heard that that would be out of order. So I would like to pose a philosophical question: is it right that
"the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 18th June to receive the honorary degree of Doctor of the University of Glasgow"?
I believe that it is right to grant such leave.
My right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House quoted from an excellent journal, published by the Library, factsheet M2, but I also want to quote in pursuance of my argument that it is right that Mr. Speaker should be given that day off. I would argue that it is not a day off, because he is representing the House, as Speaker, as well as himself, as the Member of Parliament for a Glasgow constituency, in the university of Glasgow on that day.
I should like to quote from a colourful journal that has parliamentary copyright. I believe that it is also published by the Library; I certainly obtained it from the Library. It talks about the Speaker in a very interesting and personal way that is directly relevant to the question of whether it is right that he should be given leave of absence on that day. It is important that I read this paragraph because it is true and all hon. Members should listen to these words:
"In some ways the Speaker leads a rather solitary life."
Mr. Forth: Ah.
Michael Fabricant: But it is true.
It continues:
"Though receiving plenty of visitors at the splendid Speaker's House inside the Palace of Westminster, on becoming Speaker he gives up some of the comradeship previously enjoyed as an ordinary MP. The Speaker accepts restrictions on his right to socialise informally with other MPs, and no longer has the comforting sense of belonging to a party team. The Speaker has to be seen, at all times, to be completely neutral when it comes to party politics."
Mr. George Osborne rose—
Michael Fabricant: That is the nub, but, before I pursue that argument, I shall give way to my hon. Friend.
Mr. Osborne: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, as he is certainly informing the House by quoting from that interesting document. He says that the Speaker has to be neutral of party politics, which is, of course, the case. I presume that, if there is a Division on the motion, it will be a free vote. However, does my hon. Friend agree that it was a shame that one political party in the House—the Scottish National party—chose to stand against Mr. Speaker seeking re-election at the general election?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is completely outwith the scope of the motion.
Michael Fabricant: I will, quite rightly, not answer that question, but my hon. Friend is at least right to say
64
that this is not a party political matter—perhaps this is in order—and it is interesting that, so far, no Government Member has chosen to speak in the debate, other than to intervene.
Mr. Hogg: Before my hon. Friend moves on to another point, may I caution him against putting too much emphasis on the solitary nature of the Speaker's office? We might find Mr. Speaker facing many invitations from people wishing to relieve his solitary state, which would not be to the advantage of the House.
Michael Fabricant: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a powerful point, which is connected to some of the issues that he raised earlier, when he spoke about whether a precedent has been created. After all, the former Prime Minister, John Major, created many more universities out of polytechnics—with hindsight, we might argue about whether that was right—which provides so much more scope for offering honorary doctorates to the Speaker. That would be out of order, however, so I shall not pursue that line now.
There is a further important point. Mr. Speaker stands in a long line of great Speakers. Some of them, of course, have met with violent ends. If I may be allowed—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The answer to that is no. We are debating whether Mr. Speaker Martin may have leave of absence on Wednesday 18 June 2003.
Michael Fabricant: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are right. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) pointed out, Glasgow is in Scotland—he pointed out, too, that we are the United Kingdom—and given that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) pointed out that Glasgow is in the United Kingdom, the visit to Glasgow on Wednesday in some ways reinforces the integrity of the United Kingdom. Although I shall not read out the long list of Speakers who have been beheaded—as has happened many times—and killed in battle, we have to worry about the welfare and well-being of the Speaker when he is not in the House. That raises an important and serious point. Given the genuine esteem that many of us feel for the present Speaker, because he runs this House in a way that is not only firm in direction but relaxed, and he has created an atmosphere—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman goes too far down his eulogistic line, I assure him that Mr. Speaker will always treat with equity any applications from him to speak.
Michael Fabricant: I want to put it on the record, however, that I was not intending to curry favour for myself but to make the point that Mr. Speaker's lonely position is often exacerbated by unnecessary, cruel, hurtful and inaccurate press comments. We should therefore welcome the fact that he is being honoured in this way by the university of Glasgow.
Mr. Forth: I reassure my hon. Friend, as he is clearly anxious about Mr. Speaker's safety and peace of mind on his visit to the university of Glasgow, that Mr.

65
Speaker will be on his home territory, in the city of his birth and upbringing, which rightly has a great influence on him, and in that sense he will be going home. I hope that my hon. Friend will therefore accept that we can be confident that Mr. Speaker will be looked after, cared for, loved and returned in one piece.
Michael Fabricant: I am reassured by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House. In fact, it would also be interesting to know where the Leader of the House is for this important debate. Perhaps we can be told at some point why the Leader of the House is not present. I hope that the Deputy Leader of the House will make a detailed summing-up, and I hope that he will reassure me that adequate protection will be given to the Speaker at this particular time. We are well aware of the threats that exist to those in such a high-profile position in the United Kingdom.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am surprised that my hon. Friend finds it necessary to ask where the Leader of the House is. Had he studied the press over the weekend, he would have discovered that he is only a part-time Leader of the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That is a quite separate argument.
Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for the intervention from my new neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). I had not read that particular point in the press, but I still await an answer from the Deputy Leader of the House, who will perhaps be able to point out where the Leader of the House is, and what excuse he has for not being present for this important debate.
Mr. Andrew Turner: The Leader of the House is in a sense a servant of the House in exactly the same way as Mr. Speaker. Would not it be appropriate for the Leader of the House to seek the leave of the House to be absent on a day such as this—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should have learned from my last ruling.
Michael Fabricant: Of course, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you must forgive my hon. Friend, who is a new Member and not thoroughly apprised of all the procedures that exist in the House. I am sure, however, that the new Deputy Leader of the House will be more than capable of replying. It would, however, be interesting to know where the Leader of the House is today and what protection will be given to the Speaker in these difficult times while he is away from the Palace precincts.
Mr. Osborne: My hon. Friend has returned to the point about the protection offered to the Speaker on his travels. He will be aware that another Member of the House, the Secretary of State for Education and Skills, was recently robbed on a train going back to his constituency. Is he aware of any special laws in this
66
country that protect the Speaker and that prevent citizens, or subjects, of this country from intervening in his travels from or, more particularly, to this place—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. When the hon. Gentleman started, I thought that he might have found a way of keeping in order, but he has spun out of control.
Michael Fabricant: Perhaps, again, the Deputy Leader of the House can answer that question in his long response.
Mr. Forth: I understand why my hon. Friend is struggling a little on this issue as, sadly, the Deputy Leader of the House did not seek to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, at the outset of this debate. If he had done so, he would have done the House the courtesy of explaining why his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and part-time Leader of the House was not here. Perhaps my hon. Friend would give way to the Deputy Leader of the House to allow him to do so?
Michael Fabricant: I would be happy to do so. Perhaps the reason that the Leader of the House is not here is that he is only part-time. Does the Deputy Leader of the House wish to intervene?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should be careful. Were he to sit down, I might be tempted to think that he had finished his speech.
Michael Fabricant: I would not wish you to think that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for one moment.
Mr. Hogg: Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the motion is in the name of the part-time Leader of the House, and in his name alone? In those circumstances, does he not agree that we should expect the part-time Leader of the House to be in his place?
Michael Fabricant: On that, I seek your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you are acting qua Speaker at the moment. Is it in order? It seems most unusual. Normally, on a motion, one would expect to see both the name of the Leader of the House and the Deputy—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman might know that any Minister can move a motion of this sort on the Order Paper, and any Minister can speak for another Minister. If it would assist him, however, I can tell him that the Leader of the House is currently at an introductory meeting with Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You have been kind enough to indicate where the part-time Leader of the House is. Does that indicate that as a general rule Ministers who have put their names to a motion but are not able to be in the Chamber should write to inform the Chair of where they are? If that is the case, we will want to ask the occupant of the Chair where the absentees are as a matter of general practice.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think not. I suggest that the right hon. and learned Gentleman searches his memory

67
about his own record on that matter, which might help to inform him of the procedures that Ministers follow on these occasions.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Given that the motion was tabled only relatively recently and that the Leader of the House must have known that he would be absent during the debate, would it not have been a courtesy to the House if the Deputy Leader of the House's name had appeared on the motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think that I have already ruled that the name that appears is not significant. Both Government and Opposition Members often speak to a motion to which their name does not appear, although other Members' names do.
Michael Fabricant: I think that the House and you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would welcome it if I moved on a little.
Mr. Andrew Turner: My hon. Friend referred earlier to the possibility of the Deputy Leader of the House—
Mr. Hogg: Full time.
Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) referred to the possibility the full-time Deputy Leader of the House making an intervention. Is there not a sad lacuna in Standing Orders that prevents hon. Members from sitting down to allow Front Benchers to intervene—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say respectfully to the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that I need such advice on procedure at this time?
Michael Fabricant: I shall move on and refer again to the excellent document that is obtainable from the Library of the House of Commons.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Free of charge.
Michael Fabricant: It is obtainable free of charge, as my hon. Friend says. The document features a nice picture of the Speaker in full regalia, and I hope that he will wear that or something similar in Glasgow. A picture of the Speaker's grandson is shown on the back cover of the document.
Mr. Andrew Turner: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend is trying my patience but I shall give way.
Mr. Turner: My hon. Friend refers to the regalia that Mr. Speaker will wear when the degree is conferred. Is it not normal for those on whom degrees are conferred—
Mr. Steen: Graduands.
Mr. Turner: Is it not normal for graduands to wear the robe and gown—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have had to rule the hon. Gentleman out of order on four out of four
68
interventions. His comment cannot be relevant to the motion. I hope that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) will not draw too heavily on the book that he has with him.
Michael Fabricant: I shall not, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I shall quote only one sentence because it is key to the issue and the philosophical question of whether it is right for Mr. Speaker to be given leave of absence from the House on Wednesday.
Page 8 of the document says:
"It is because the Speaker represents the House of Commons, which itself represents the people of the United Kingdom and is the safeguard of the fundamental freedoms of the country, that he or she is treated with honour and dignity."
Mr. George Osborne: We are aware that Mr. Speaker is receiving the honour not only as Speaker of the House, but as the constituency Member for Glasgow, Springburn. My hon. Friend should bear that in mind.
Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend raises an interesting point but I argue that Mr. Speaker is probably receiving the degree primarily because he is Speaker of the House. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) is nodding in agreement.
Mr. Osborne: I do not want to cross my hon. Friend but I am not sure whether it is entirely clear that the university of Glasgow—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We cannot go down that particular lane.
Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for your protection, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I realise that the exact terms of the motion refer to the Speaker being given leave of absence on Wednesday 18 June. If my hon. Friend's idea were really borne in mind, the motion would have referred to the Speaker and Member of Parliament for so on and so forth.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have just said that the point made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Osborne) should not be borne in mind at all.
Mr. Steen: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have been following the debate, as I am sure that you have. Will we have such a debate every time Mr. Speaker leaves the precincts or is this a one-off debate so that we can adjust to the situation and decide whether to join in or not?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not been following the debate for quite as long as me. This is a one-off occasion. We do not know how many times the occupant of the Chair or any Member of the House might be so honoured.
Mr. Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For absolute clarification, I hope that you will confirm that Standing Orders require that each time Mr. Speaker needs to be away from the House, except on Fridays, such a motion must be put before the House,

69
debated and voted on, if necessary. I hope that you will confirm that each occasion of absence, other than on a Friday, is a matter for individual treatment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I can, indeed, confirm that. It is why there is a motion on the Order Paper that need, or need not, be debated according to circumstances.
Mr. Bercow: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry but my brow is furrowed and I am frankly troubled by this afternoon's events. I seek assurance and I would be appreciative of your guidance. It was helpful that you advised us that the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain) was holding the first of his meetings with Mr. Speaker this afternoon because the right hon. Gentleman did not tell us that himself. On a point of procedure and with regard to what might be described as old-fashioned parliamentary courtesy, would it have been appropriate for the right hon. Gentleman either to speak to the motion or to explain why he was not doing so, given that although he knew that he could not be here now, he did manage to be present for the Deputy Prime Minister's statement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have already explained that the appearance of Ministers' names on a motion does not necessarily indicate that all or any will be present to move it. I do not think that there is any difficulty at all or that we can continue to go over this ground. If the hon. Gentleman continues to have a furrowed brow, I suggest that he takes up the issue with his hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who is Chairman of the Procedure Committee.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. You and I have been Members of the House for a long time—you rather longer than me. Would you be good enough to confirm that a Minister will often stand up at the beginning of a debate to say a few words to the motion and to apologise for, and explain, the absence of a Minister such as the part-time Leader of the House when the latter's name heads the motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No. I can speak from considerable experience to say that that does not always happen and that the House does not always take it in bad heart.
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Further to the point of order made by my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I understood that you made it clear that the House must pass a motion each time that Mr. Speaker needs to be away from the House. Will you enlighten me on what would happen if Mr. Speaker knew that he would be away for three days during a two-month period? Could that be allowed by one consolidated motion?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is entirely hypothetical. The answer that I gave to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was crystal clear in the context of our debate today.
Michael Fabricant: I cannot help but ask myself whether it is right that Mr. Speaker should be given leave of absence on Wednesday 18 June, given the
70
unique circumstances of having a part-time Leader of the House who cannot be present and who allows his full-time deputy to be present without putting the deputy's name—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that matter and have tried to assist the House as well as I can. We should proceed with the debate on the substance of the motion.
Michael Fabricant: I was merely going to ask whether such an action would be courteous.
Mr. Forth: Perhaps I can help my hon. Friend. That august body, the House of Commons Commission, is meeting as we speak. I am a member of the Commission for the time being, but I have chosen to fulfil my parliamentary duties by being in the Chamber. The part-time Leader of the House has chosen to be in the Commission meeting. I shall leave my hon. Friend and others present to judge which they think is the better choice.
Michael Fabricant: That is an interesting point. I hope that tens of millions of pounds will not be wasted on blank cheques because of the absence of my right hon. Friend, who is always cautious when he attends the Commission's meetings.
I was talking about the role of the Speaker in representing the United Kingdom. As I mentioned before, his receipt of an honorary doctorate in Glasgow strengthens the role of the UK at a difficult time. Only today we heard a statement on regional assemblies—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is becoming repetitious. He prompts me by saying "as I mentioned before". I remind him how close we might be to implementing Standing Order No. 42.
Michael Fabricant: I am grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your reminder of Standing Order No. 42 and for reminding me not to remind the Chair when I have already made a point. That might be good advice for when I am invited to take part in "Just a Minute" on BBC Radio 4.
My serious point relates to the role of Mr. Speaker in representing all of us in the United Kingdom.
Sir Sydney Chapman: I remind my hon. Friend that next Wednesday sees a happy conjunction of events. First, Mr. Speaker will, we hope, have leave of absence to get his honorary doctorate at Glasgow university. I shall certainly vote for the motion. Secondly, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means will celebrate his 33rd anniversary of being elected to the House. A few others will also celebrate that anniversary but, sadly, it is only a few. With his huge experience, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means has my full confidence in acting for the Speaker on that day in particular.
Michael Fabricant: I am very grateful for that intervention. The whole House can congratulate the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Ways and Means on his 33rd anniversary in the House. I for one have no

71
doubt that even though we have a complex and difficult day on Wednesday 18 June, the Deputy Speaker, acting as qua Speaker, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham said, will do so with dignity and equal skill.
It will be a difficult day. That is relevant. As some hon. Members said, we have questions to the Deputy Prime Minister and the Prime Minister. We have also learned that there will be a statement by the Prime Minister on the future constitution of Parliament, directly flowing from the Speaker's intervention and request. A 10-minute Bill is on the Order Paper—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to go through the Order Paper. For all I know, it is as yet incomplete for Wednesday. He might know that I have sat in the Chair to deal with the contentious matter of 10-minute Bills before.
Michael Fabricant: Do you not think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the Domestic Violence (Law Reform) Bill, which will be introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham, might be so contentious that the House becomes disorderly?
Mr. Forth: Is my hon. Friend not slightly worried about the hint dropped by Mr. Deputy Speaker a moment ago when he said that the Order Paper "is as yet incomplete"? The anxiety is not what we already know about the Order Paper, but what could arise between now and Wednesday. Has my hon. Friend thought of that?
Michael Fabricant: My right hon. Friend raises an important point. Who would have thought that a statement would have bitten into Opposition day time last week? That was pretty surprising given the agreement on both sides of the House that that should not happen. We do not know what will happen on Wednesday. It is an important day. I have put my name down to speak in the debate on European affairs, and I hope that I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is going a good way about it.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. For the purposes of clarification, will you advise the House what aspects of my hon. Friend's speechifying are likely to disqualify him so that we can all learn from his experience?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was merely alluding to the fact that the hon. Member for Lichfield (Michael Fabricant) was bringing himself to prominence by stressing that he hoped to catch the eye of the occupant of the Chair at the relevant time on Wednesday.
Michael Fabricant: I am grateful for that—
Mr. Bellingham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I left the Chamber a few moments ago to go to the gents and then to have a glass of water and make a
72
few telephone calls. I left in the hope that by the time I returned my hon. Friend would have finished his speech. I notice from the annunciator that he started his speech at 6.8 pm. It is now 6.16 pm. There must be a mistake. I have a feeling he started at least 40 minutes ago.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: There is a mistake on the annunciator, but we were all so engrossed in the speech of the hon. Member for Lichfield that none of us noticed.
Michael Fabricant: Mr. Deputy Speaker, you are a generous man and I have no doubt that you will ably replace—if that is the right word—the Speaker on Wednesday 18 June. Given that the amount of time one speaks in this debate might be linked to one's chances of speaking on Wednesday, it might be useful if I concluded my remarks.
At the beginning I asked whether it is right to give the Speaker leave to go to Glasgow to have an honorary doctorate conferred on him. I believe that it is. It is an honour not only for Mr. Speaker Martin, but for the House. The Speaker performs his role with dignity and excellence. Those who carp about the Speaker would not dream of doing the job themselves. The criticisms of him are driven by class, arrogance and pomposity. He has created an atmosphere in the House that compares well, if not better, with that of certain former Speakers, who I believe created in some instances an aura of terror. I just wanted to get that point on the record. I for one will support the motion.
6.18 pm
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I am in an unusual position, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If you will permit me, I shall stray from the narrow order of the debate simply to say what a great honour and privilege it is to speak from the Dispatch Box. I hope that in whatever time I spend in this post, I do my constituents of Oldham, East and Saddleworth, and the House and its rules, proud. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to speak.
I find myself in unusual circumstances also because, contrary to my assessment that this would be merely a pleasurable rubber-stamping exercise, the civil servants in the Office of the Leader of the House, whom I have already discovered to be excellent, advised me to prepare some notes in the event that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) wanted, with whatever motive, to make some remarks.
Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Woolas: Yes, but briefly and just once, if I may.
Mr. Bercow: I am very grateful indeed. Having known the hon. Gentleman for 18 years, I take particular pleasure in congratulating him on his appointment as Deputy Leader of the House. May I put it to him—in the context of the motion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you will readily understand—that his appointment represents a promotion not only on his previous post in the Whips

73
Office but on the important role that he played 17 years ago as a very left-wing leader of the National Union of Students?
Mr. Woolas: Those 18 years have taught me not to wander into such territory, but I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks.
Mr. Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for a Minister, however new, to come to the Dispatch Box, purportedly to wind up a debate, and say brazenly that he will take only one intervention? Is that in the spirit of the House of Commons? Indeed, does it accord with the Standing Orders of the House?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is entirely at the discretion of all right hon. or hon. Members whether and how often they give way in the course of debate.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not usual in a debate such as this for the Minister to wind up at the end, when he has had the opportunity of hearing everybody speak, so that he can respond to them?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If the Minister rises in his place, it is usual for the Chair to call him at that time.
Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Of course, I understand that, but surely it is usual for the Minister to wish to listen to the views of right hon. and hon. Members before rising to his feet, so that he can respond to their points.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: That has nothing to do with the Chair.
Mr. Woolas: The motion is extremely narrow and relates simply to the decision by the university of Glasgow to honour our Speaker with a doctorate this Wednesday. The House will find it surprising that the Conservative Members who spoke for an hour and three quarters—we could conclude from that that there has been a failure of opposition—in attempting unnecessarily to prolong the proceedings have served almost to ridicule the honour to be bestowed by the university of Glasgow. I suspect that their contributions also bordered on disrespect for your position as set out in Standing Order No. 3, Mr. Deputy Speaker, as you rightly outlined.
Mr. George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Surely it is for you to decide whether we are showing disrespect to the Chair, rather than for another Member to accuse us of doing so.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I have made one or two rulings in the course of the debate to try to guide right hon. and hon. Members away from any such criticism.
Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that you would be the first to say that right hon. and hon. Members have responded to your guidance and accurately reflected your wishes.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I would always like to think so.
Mr. Woolas: Suffice it to say that Labour Members are certainly delighted to hear the news of the honour for our Speaker, who, like you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is held in extremely high regard—on both sides of the House, I hope, but certainly on this side.
For the record, I have been informed that there have been five such motions in the last 10 years, so although infrequent, they are not unusual. I have also been informed—this may be of interest to the House and may serve as a lesson for Conservative Members—that such motions have never been objected to or, indeed, spoken to. That will explain my actions. As you rightly pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am grateful to you for doing so, it is perfectly normal for a Deputy Leader of the House to move a motion in the name of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. Indeed, it is normal for an obscure, unheard of and brand new Deputy Speaker to do so.
Mr. George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I believe that I heard the hon. Gentleman refer to the Deputy Speaker as obscure and brand new. Neither of those things applies to you.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I caught no such drift.
Mr. Woolas: I am sure that Hansard will record my remarks as being about myself, the Deputy Leader.
Mr. Bellingham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Woolas: No, I am afraid not. I said earlier that I would not give way, and the House is anxious to get on to the substantive business.
I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Chief Whip would support me in concluding my remarks quickly, given the important business before the House. As I said, Conservative Members have tainted the distinction that the university of Glasgow is to give our Speaker. It is a great shame that what should be a non-partisan issue has been used in that way, for whatever reason.
Michael Fabricant: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The shadow Leader of the House clearly was not listening to the debate. I alluded to a strange event last week when, on an Opposition day, the Government chose to make a statement. The Deputy Leader of the House might like to think about that.
Mr. Woolas: The shadow Leader of the House may not have been listening to the debate, and I shall not respond to those remarks.
We have had a wide-ranging debate, which, as you pointed out, Mr. Deputy Speaker, went beyond the subject of the motion on several occasions. I simply say that the time for the proceedings on the Licensing Bill, which is before the House later today, is protected, so it is difficult to understand the point of the last two hours of debate if the intention was to delay the consideration of the proposals for late licensing. Perhaps the only benefit of the Opposition's tactics has been to secure late licensing in the House of Commons. That said, the best thing to do is move on.
Mr. Foulkes rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question put, That the Question be now put:—
The House divided: Ayes 324, Noes 105.

Division No. 232]

[6:28 am

AYES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Corston, Jean

Ainger, Nick

Cotter, Brian

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cousins, Jim

Alexander, Douglas

Cranston, Ross

Allen, Graham

Crausby, David

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Cruddas, Jon

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Cummings, John

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Atkins, Charlotte

Darling, rh Alistair

Austin, John

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Baird, Vera

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Banks, Tony

David, Wayne

Barrett, John

Davidson, Ian

Barron, rh Kevin

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Bayley, Hugh

Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

Beard, Nigel

Dawson, Hilton

Benn, Hilary

Dean, Mrs Janet

Bennett, Andrew

Denham, rh John

Berry, Roger

Dhanda, Parmjit

Best, Harold

Dismore, Andrew

Betts, Clive

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Blackman, Liz

Dobson, rh Frank

Blears, Ms Hazel

Donohoe, Brian H.

Blizzard, Bob

Doran, Frank

Blunkett, rh David

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Borrow, David

Drew, David (Stroud)

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Drown, Ms Julia

Bradshaw, Ben

Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

Breed, Colin

Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

Brennan, Kevin

Edwards, Huw

Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

Efford, Clive

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Ellman, Mrs Louise

Browne, Desmond

Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

Bryant, Chris

Farrelly, Paul

Buck, Ms Karen

Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

Burden, Richard

Fisher, Mark

Burnham, Andy

Flint, Caroline

Burstow, Paul

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Byers, rh Stephen

Follett, Barbara

Caborn, rh Richard

Foster, rh Derek

Cairns, David

Foster, Michael (Worcester)

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Foulkes, rh George

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Caplin, Ivor

Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

Caton, Martin

Gardiner, Barry

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Gerrard, Neil

Challen, Colin

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Gilroy, Linda

Chaytor, David

Godsiff, Roger

Chidgey, David

Goggins, Paul

Clapham, Michael

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Hain, rh Peter

Clelland, David

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Coaker, Vernon

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Cohen, Harry

Hancock, Mike

Coleman, Iain

Hanson, David

Connarty, Michael

Harvey, Nick

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Healey, John

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Heath, David

Cooper, Yvette

Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

76

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

McWalter, Tony

Hendrick, Mark

McWilliam, John

Hepburn, Stephen

Mandelson, rh Peter

Heppell, John

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Hesford, Stephen

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Heyes, David

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Hinchliffe, David

Martlew, Eric

Hodge, Margaret

Meacher, rh Michael

Holmes, Paul

Michael, rh Alun

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Miliband, David

Hopkins, Kelvin

Miller, Andrew

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

Moffatt, Laura

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Mole, Chris

Morley, Elliot

Howells, Dr. Kim

Mountford, Kali

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Mudie, George

Mullin, Chris

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Humble, Mrs Joan

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Illsley, Eric

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Irranca-Davies, Huw

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

O'Hara, Edward

Olner, Bill

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Öpik, Lembit

Jamieson, David

Organ, Diana

Jenkins, Brian

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Owen, Albert

Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Perham, Linda

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Picking, Anne

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

Pickthall, Colin

Keeble, Ms Sally

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Plaskitt, James

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Pollard, Kerry

Kemp, Fraser

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Khabra, Piara S.

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Kidney, David

Prescott, rh John

Kilfoyle, Peter

Primarolo, rh Dawn

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Prosser, Gwyn

Pugh, Dr. John

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Purchase, Ken

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Purnell, James

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Quin, rh Joyce

Lamb, Norman

Rammell, Bill

Lammy, David

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Raynsford, rh Nick

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

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

Lazarowicz, Mark

Leslie, Christopher

Rendel, David

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Linton, Martin

Rooney, Terry

Llwyd, Elfyn

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

Love, Andrew

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Ruane, Chris

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Ruddock, Joan

McAvoy, Thomas

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

McCabe, Stephen

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

McCafferty, Chris

McDonagh, Siobhain

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

MacDonald, Calum

Sanders, Adrian

MacDougall, John

Sarwar, Mohammad

McFall, John

Savidge, Malcolm

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Sawford, Phil

McIsaac, Shona

Sedgemore, Brian

McKechin, Ann

Shaw, Jonathan

McKenna, Rosemary

Sheerman, Barry

Mackinlay, Andrew

Sheridan, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Short, rh Clare

McNulty, Tony

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

MacShane, Denis

Singh, Marsha

Mactaggart, Fiona

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

77

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Ward, Claire

Wareing, Robert N.

Soley, Clive

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Southworth, Helen

Watts, David

Steinberg, Gerry

White, Brian

Stevenson, George

Wicks, Malcolm

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

Stinchcombe, Paul

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Stoate, Dr. Howard

Willis, Phil

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Wills, Michael

Stunell, Andrew

Winnick, David

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wishart, Pete

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Woolas, Phil

Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

Worthington, Tony

Tipping, Paddy

Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Trickett, Jon

Truswell, Paul

Wright, David (Tefford)

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Wyatt, Derek

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

Tellers for the Ayes:

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Ms Bridget Prentice and

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Jim Fitzpatrick

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cameron, David

Amess, David

Cash, William

Ancram, rh Michael

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Bacon, Richard

Chope, Christopher

Barker, Gregory

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Baron, John (Billericay)

Curry, rh David

Bellingham, Henry

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Bercow, John

Blunt, Crispin

Djanogly, Jonathan

Boswell, Tim

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Brazier, Julian

Evans, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Fallon, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Butterfill, John

78

Flook, Adrian

Page, Richard

Forth, rh Eric

Paice, James

Francois, Mark

Paterson, Owen

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Pickles, Eric

Garnier, Edward

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Randall, John

Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

Redwood, rh John

Goodman, Paul

Robathan, Andrew

Grayling, Chris

Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Grieve, Dominic

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Hammond, Philip

Rosindell, Andrew

Hawkins, Nick

Ruffley, David

Heald, Oliver

Selous, Andrew

Hendry, Charles

Shepherd, Richard

Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

Simmonds, Mark

Horam, John (Orpington)

Soames, Nicholas

Howard, rh Michael

Spelman, Mrs Caroline

Hunter, Andrew

Spring, Richard

Jack, rh Michael

Stanley, rh Sir John

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Steen, Anthony

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Streeter, Gary

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Leigh, Edward

Syms, Robert

Letwin, rh Oliver

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Loughton, Tim

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Tyrie, Andrew

Maclean, rh David

Walter, Robert

McLoughlin, Patrick

Waterson, Nigel

Malins, Humfrey

Watkinson, Angela

Maples, John

Whittingdale, John

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Willetts, David

Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

Wilshire, David

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Moss, Malcolm

Young, rh Sir George

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Tellers for the Noes:

Osborne, George (Tatton)

Mr. Douglas Hogg and

Ottaway, Richard

Michael Fabricant

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Speaker have leave of absence on Wednesday 18th June to receive the honorary degree of Doctor of the University of Glasgow.

Licensing Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
6.43 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Dr. Kim Howells): I beg to move,
That the programme order of 24th March 2003 in relation to the Licensing Bill [Lords] be varied as follows:

Consideration and Third Reading
1. Paragraphs 4 and 5 of the order shall be omitted.
2. Proceedings on consideration shall be taken in the order shown in the first column of the following Table and each part of the proceedings shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the time specified in the second column.

TABLE

Proceedings

Time for conclusion of proceedings

Amendments relating to Clause 1, Schedules 1 and 2, Clauses 2 to 8, Schedule 3 and Clauses 9 to 15

Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Amendments relating to Clauses 16 to 111, Schedule 4, Clauses 112 to 176, Schedule 5 and Clauses 177 to 192

Four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

Amendments relating to Clauses 193 to 196 and Schedules 6 to 8, New Clauses, New Schedules and remaining proceedings on the Bill

Five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.

3. Proceedings on Third Reading shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order.
As hon. Members know, the Bill has received long and detailed scrutiny both here and in another place. There were some five hours debate on Second Reading in another place, six days in Committee in another place, three days on Report and more than three hours of debate on Third Reading—getting on for 60 hours in all.
We had a full and wide-ranging Second Reading debate in this House. The Bill was considered for 17 sittings of the Standing Committee, and I am grateful to all hon. Members who participated in our consideration of it for their constructive contributions, which made for a useful and thorough discussion. I do not doubt that the Bill is all the better for that.
The programme motion will allow us to discuss the issues in a sensible way. Grouping amendments with the relevant clauses and schedules will allow us to take a logical approach to the debates. Again, I emphasise that there has already been ample discussion in both Houses of the vast majority of the issues before us today. That is why I believe that the full day of debate today should provide us with sufficient time to refine many of the arguments that have been exposed during the Bill's passage. I appreciate that there are outstanding issues to which hon. Members will wish to return. We have given careful consideration to the structure, and the time allotted to each group of amendments reflects that.
Ms Julia Drown: My hon. Friend emphasised the long discussions that have taken place on the Bill, but it is a wide-ranging Bill. I am particularly interested in the two hours allotted for schedule 1, as that affects my constituents who suffer from motocross events that are not licensed, and could have been
80
covered by schedule 1. As no amendment to that has been selected today, will he ensure that there are further ministerial meetings with me and colleagues from Swindon so that we can pursue the matter further?
Dr. Howells: I am well aware that my hon. Friend has done sterling work in trying to reflect the great difficulties that some of her constituents have suffered as a consequence of the nature of the event that she described, and some of the behaviour associated with it. I understand that ministerial meetings will take place with her so that the matter can be pursued a little further through more appropriate channels than discussion during our consideration of the Bill.
A considerable number of the amendments to be debated today have been tabled by the Government, following careful consideration of points raised in Committee, and I hope that these will be generally welcomed. I look forward to an interesting and lively debate.
6.47 pm
Mr. Malcolm Moss: May I begin by congratulating the Minister on his promotion and change of Department? I see from today's Evening Standard that he has wasted no time in putting the fares up on the railways. Whether he is to be congratulated on that, I am not sure. [Interruption.] That is news to him, he says.
Perhaps it is a pity that such a fine Minister was part of a botched reshuffle. Following on from the Government's indecisiveness over that, today we had one Minister nominated to take the Report stage through, then another, and then back to the previous Minister. We welcome him this evening, because he understands the issues more than any other of his colleagues, but we are also disappointed, because we know before we start that he is highly unlikely to yield anything at all this evening, as he would not want to leave any potential hostages to fortune to his successor, whoever that might be.
During our proceedings this evening, we may get a feeling that the Minister considers himself well shot of this difficult Bill. He has, of course, been unfortunate in having the two major Bills from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to take through Parliament this Session—the Communications Bill and the Licensing Bill. It would have been superhuman of him to be able to devote the full time and deal properly with all the issues arising from the two massive Bills that were handed to him.
If there has been one recurrent and consistent theme throughout the passage of the Bill, first through their lordships' House and now through this House, it is the fact that many interested parties, organisations and groups have not had the consultation that they feel they need and deserve.
I have forgotten the number of times that I have heard from interested parties that their letters have been ignored and their requests for meetings turned down. As a result, at this very late stage, a sizeable number of people who are faced with the impact of the legislation

81
on their lives and businesses are, to put it mildly, distinctly unimpressed. They see the motion as yet another demonstration of the desire of an arrogant and out-of-touch Government to railroad a Bill through the House with their huge majority while totally ignoring the views of those who know more about the practicalities and the operation of licensing and entertainment in all its guises than—I say this with all due respect—those who have compiled the Bill.
As the Minister told us, there are about 115 amendments and new clauses to debate this evening. The Opposition have some serious reservations about the groupings and the way in which the guillotines will fall. For example, in the first two hours there are only 22 amendments to discuss, but in the next two hours there are some 80 amendments, 52 of which are Government amendments. The Minister was proud to boast about those amendments, but the fact is that the majority of the issues with which they deal were not even mentioned in Committee, and the Government have thought them up since. Notwithstanding all the issues that were debated in Committee and the points that were made, the Government have not taken up one of those proposals in any shape or form.
Time and again, those who will be most affected—in some cases, this applies to those who were actively involved in the process in the early stages—have told me that the Bill has evolved to be much wider than what was proposed in the White Paper. New issues have been introduced on which there was no consultation in respect of the Home Office White Paper. In Committee, and now on Report, when the Opposition attempt to give voice to those resentments and frustrations, the Government seem oblivious to any proposals or suggestions, however pragmatic and workable. Worse than that, they reversed almost all the Lords amendments in Committee, where guillotines fell to cut off debate on some key issues. Similarly, the time
82
allotted on Report for the groups of amendments will no doubt mean that the guillotine will fall and key issues will not be debated.
The Government's tactics may be to dig in and take their chances in the other place when the Bill returns there on Thursday, but they run the risk of riding roughshod over sensible and helpful suggestions. That can only store up problems for them that will arise when the Bill is enacted and must be implemented in its many forms. This is far too important a measure to be treated in that way.
6.53 pm
Mr. Adrian Sanders: I agree with the comments of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
The Bill has indeed changed since its original conception in terms of the consultation papers that were available and the broad outline that the Government published. Many Lords amendments have been reversed. A reflection of why we need more time than is being proposed is the number of amendments tabled and the number of representations made to hon. Members associated with the Committee. There is a great deal of disquiet among those involved in the alcohol and entertainment industries. They are rightly concerned on a number of levels because of what they understand that the Bill contains.
I concede that in some respects, the perception of the Bill is far worse than the detail, but it is the Government's job to go out and sell the Bill and to give the industry confidence that they are not going to tie it up in added expense, red tape and difficulty. At the same time, they must ensure that the public's expectations of the Bill in terms of improved law and order will be met. At the moment, that message is not getting through. There is a need to consider the Bill at some length—certainly at greater length than is being proposed.
Question put and agreed to.

Orders of the Day
  Licensing Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Licensing Bill [Lords]
    Schedule 1

      PROVISION OF REGULATED ENTERTAINMENT
      6.55 pm
      Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 162, in page 109, line 31, at end insert
      'for the entertainment or entertainment facilities'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 163, in page 110, line 14, at end insert—
      '() For the purposes of subparagraph (4)(a), a person concerned in the organisation or management of entertainment facilities is not concerned in the organisation and management of the entertainment within paragraph 3(2) by reason only—

      (a) that he makes available the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment facilities are provided, or

      (b) that during the entertainment he continues to organise or manage the premises on which entertainment facilities are provided.'.

      Mr. Moss: A number of organisations, including the Historic Houses Association, are concerned about the definition of private events in the Bill. That drafting means that private events—in particular, wedding receptions and concerts—could inadvertently be drawn into the scope of the Bill, despite the statement that the Minister made to the Historic Houses Association in a letter of 30 January:
      "It is not the intention or the effect of the Bill to require wedding parties to require a licence to serve alcohol at their reception or provide entertainment for their guests (except in the rare circumstance when guests are charged to attend the wedding)".
      Despite that statement, the situation still appears far from clear. The Historic Houses Association is working hard to encourage more houses to open up, and the Opposition are concerned about anything that will needlessly frustrate those endeavours and restrict public access to and enjoyment of our heritage. We support its efforts to encourage more tourists to visit such locations.
      The Government have already revised paragraph 1(4)(a)(ii) of the schedule expressly to prevent private events from being brought within the scope of the Bill. Indeed, in its new form the provision states that private entertainment facilities need to be licensed only if any charge is made and if the owner or manager is also involved in the organisation of the music, dancing or provision of alcohol. However, the interpretation of that provision appears far from clear. I shall give the House two examples. First, officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport have said to various people that the provision of a dance floor would fall within the definition. That appears to encompass informally making available—I quote from the Bill—"space within a room". Of course, dancing could take place in such a space. The provision could thus result in an anomalous situation whereby a licence would not be needed if a bride and groom hired a marquee, complete
      84
      with a dance floor, to be placed in the garden of a house, but one would be needed if dancing took place inside the house.
      The second anomaly relates to paragraph 1(1)(b), which expressly gives an exemption when a person performing or playing music at a private event provides any facilities for the purposes of his performance. We believe that that definition needs to be extended to avoid a licence requirement applying if a bride and groom hire audio equipment, but not if the person performing or playing music provides the equipment.
      At best, the legislation is still highly ambiguous. At worst, it appears contrary to what the Department intends. Unless there is extremely clear guidance—we await guidance on many issues even at this late stage of the Bill's passage—the legislation will become subject to widely differing interpretation, which will cause confusion and inconsistency of application. The amendments seek to address those problems.
      Dr. Howells: I, too, have great admiration for the Historic Houses Association. It is doing excellent work in opening up some of the most wonderful buildings and gardens, which are great assets to the tourism trade.
      Let me say up-front that the Government cannot accept amendment No. 162, as it would introduce a serious loophole into the entertainment licensing regime. I shall try to explain why. It would allow any individual who wished to put on entertainment under paragraph 1(2)(c) of schedule 1 to circumvent the licensing requirements altogether, simply by providing sandwiches, for example, and making a charge that he or she claimed to be for the food, but which was actually for the entertainment. The amendment would drive the proverbial coach and horses through this part of the Bill, and I very much hope that the hon. Gentleman will see fit to withdraw it.
      Amendment 163 is a little more complicated. Those who inspired it have aired their concerns to the Department on a number of occasions. They are concerned about situations in which the owner of a stately home might wish, for example, to hire out the ballroom to a third party who would then organise the entertainment at a wedding. They argue that in such circumstances the owner of the home should not require a premises licence or other authorisation if they take no further part in the entertainment.
      The Government agree with that view, and we have amended the Bill to make that clear. Let me explain how. Schedule 1 sets out a number of conditions that determine whether the provision of entertainment or entertainment facilities is regulated entertainment. The condition in sub-paragraph (2)(c) is that where entertainment is not provided essentially to the public, or exclusively for members of a club, it is regulated entertainment where it is provided
      "for consideration and with a view to profit."
      Sub-paragraph (4) sets out what we mean by "consideration". It states that
      "entertainment is, or entertainment facilities are, only to be regarded as provided for consideration if any charge—

      (a) is made by or on behalf of—

      (i) any person concerned in the organisation or management of that entertainment, or … those facilities".

      85
      In relation to entertainment facilities, sub-paragraph (4) provides that a person will not be so concerned unless he is
      "also concerned in the organisation or management of the entertainment within paragraph 3(2) in which those facilities enable persons to take part".
      Clearly, that excludes the circumstances that I described a moment ago. The owner of the stately home would be concerned in the provision of the entertainment facilities—the dance floor, say—but not in the organisation of the entertainment for which those facilities were provided.
      I understand the hon. Gentleman's trouble, because it is a complicated issue, but I hope that in the light of my explanation and assurances he will see fit not to press the amendment.
      Mr. Moss: The Minister attempts to separate the functions taking place under private agency in the grounds of an historic house, and an entertainment facility within the house itself—a ballroom, for example. Surely, however, the management of that enterprise will be involved in the setting up of whatever the customer wants to take place in the ballroom. They cannot simply say, "There's the ballroom: get on with it." They will have to be involved in some discourse about where things go, where the power points are, and so forth. That is where the anomaly arises. It is not clear-cut where the demarcation lies between the non-licensable activity taking place in the garden, perhaps under a marquee, and facilities that are being provided in the house. How do people avoid that problem?
      Dr. Howells: I hope that the hon. Gentleman considers my explanation to be authoritative. As I said, it is a complicated issue, but I am confident that I have said enough to give some comfort to him and to owners of historic houses who may feel threatened or concerned about this part of the Bill.
      Mr. Moss: I am grateful for the Minister's assurances. Knowing him as I do, I am sure that they will be transferred verbatim to his successor, whom we shall no doubt hold to account in due course. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
      Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 64, in page 111, line 27, leave out from '2' to end of line 28 and insert—
      '(2) For the purposes of subparagraph (1), the performance of live music or the playing of recorded music shall not be regarded as anything other than incidental to some other activity, merely because it has been advertised.'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 161, in page 111, line 28, at end insert—
      'Performance of live music indoors
      7A (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music indoors is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act if—

      (a) it takes place wholly inside a building,

      86

      (b) the audience present at the event is accommodated wholly inside that building, and

      (c) the size of the audience and the noise resulting from the event do not exceed the prescribed limits.

      (2) The Secretary of State shall by order prescribe the limits referred to in subparagraph (1)(c).'.
      No. 132, in page 111, line 32, after 'that', insert—

      '(a) such entertainment is inaudible outside the premises, and

      (b)'.

      No. 109, in page 112, line 2, at end insert—
      9A The provision of any entertainment or entertainment facilities in the premises of an educational establishment for the purposes directly connected to the activities of the establishment is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.'.
      No. 63, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
      'Small events—live music
      (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where—

      (a) the number of listeners or spectators present does not exceed 200 at any one time, and

      (b) the entertainment ceases no later than 11.30 pm.

      (2) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of entertainment described in subparagraph (1) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.
      (3) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place.'.
      No. 105, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
      'Traditional folk performances
      The provision of entertainment consisting of paceegging, mumming, morris dancing, souling or other traditional folk performances of a similar character is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.'.
      No. 160, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
      'Small events—dance and plays
      The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of dance or plays is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes for this Act where—

      (a) the performance takes place in the open air; and

      (b) the performance ends before 11.30 p.m.; and either

      (c) the number of persons performing does not at any time exceed twenty four, or

      (d) the number of listeners or audience does not exceed 200.'.

      No. 62, in page 113, line 19, at end insert—
      '(2) The "performance of live music" means a performance of any musical composition, whether involving improvisation or not,—

      (a) which is given wholly or in part by one or more persons actually present and performing, and

      (b) in which the whole or a major proportion of what is done by the person or persons performing is either singing, or the playing of a musical instrument, or both.'.

      Mr. Moss: I shall begin by speaking exclusively to amendment No. 64, which relates to the exemption provisions in part 2 of schedule 1. We tabled the amendment because although we had a good debate in Committee on incidental music, and the Minister made every attempt under the sun to define it for us, we remained unconvinced. He made a good fist of it, however. He said:
      "If the entertainment is advertised and the purpose of the music is to draw in customers and to make a profit for the business, that has a direct bearing on the business and it would be difficult to describe it as incidental."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 1 April 2003; c. 69.]
      The reason for the amendment is simple. If something is advertised, why should it be read across to bottom-line profit? Should it necessarily be regarded as a nefarious activity involving trying to make money? To my knowledge, most people who run pubs are in the business of trying to make money, so why will the activity be precluded from the exemptions under paragraph 7 if it is advertised? If there was to be an exchange of money or a charge at the door, then, yes, perhaps there would be a direct correlation between the advertisement of the event and people turning up as result and paying their money. One could then say that the pub landlord was indeed trying to make money out of advertising the music. However, if there was no charge at the door, surely he would simply be attempting to get more people into his pub. I suppose that he would hope to sell more alcohol, but there is not necessarily any direct correlation between people coming to enjoy some folk music, or the improvisation of certain musicians, and drinking more alcohol.
      We tabled the amendment in a different form from that which we debated in Committee to tease out from the Minister exactly why he and those advising him think that advertising folk music in the local pub means that it should be licensable, given that the music that is played may be the same background music as would be played normally if it had not been advertised. Precluding it from the exemptions is neither logical, sensible nor fair to those involved.
      There is surely an argument that we should encourage pubs to put on live music of any kind. In Committee, the Minister was frequently at pains to stress that he championed live music and wanted more music to be played and heard in pubs and clubs. We will discuss the meatier stuff in the Bill later, but the measure might achieve the opposite of what the Minister genuinely—I choose the word with care—wants to happen.
      It could be argued that incidental music—indeed, any live music—should be encouraged in pubs. Doing so means not only that the landlord or tenant encourages live music and the musicians who play it, but the encouragement of social cohesion in villages and rural areas. It would spread culture and the arts and foster the sort of ambience and lifestyle that are so vital to our tourist industry. As the former Minister for tourism, the hon. Gentleman said that we needed to broaden the range of our activities to encourage people from not only abroad but our country to visit rural communities and participate in the sort of events that I described. We believe that the encouragement that the former Minister for tourism gave should be adopted.
      88
      We are not considering a band session in which people sit and listen to the music all the time, but music in the background, with different people playing. The amendment would help folk groups and promote social cohesion and culture in our rural communities.
      Amendment No. 63 deals with the "Small events—live music" exemption and is coupled with consequential amendment No. 62, which defines the performance of live music. It resembles an amendment that was accepted in the other place. However, the Government saw fit to reject it in Committee. We believe that it is so important that we have tabled it again. If my antennae serve me well, the matter will be around for several sittings in the other place as well as here for a little longer; it will not go away. As I said earlier, the Government may have decided to dig in and go to the wire on the matter, but I believe that they must devise a sensible and practical provision on small events and relevant issues to live music in small gatherings to get the Bill through all its stages.
      Throughout the Bill's passage, those involved, such as the Musicians Union, the Association of British Jazz Musicians and the English Folk Dance and Song Society, have not wavered from their opinion that the measure will prove a disaster for the performing arts. Indeed, they believe that it goes against the Government's much heralded inclusivity banner and that the Bill is perhaps the most exclusive measure drafted by a Labour Government. Although it was hailed as an improvement, the organisations state that
      "this hodge-podge of proposals actually extends the arbitrary discriminations of the old licensing regime."
      They give examples. First, the Bill appears to allow a full-scale stand-up comedy routine, with stage, lighting and amplification, but insists on a licence to perform a play. Fears continue that a "play" could cover Punch and Judy shows.
      7.15 pm
      I received a letter today from someone who takes his Punch and Judy tent to many events throughout the country. He is miffed that he may not be allowed to do that in future if he has to obtain a licence at every location that he visits. I shall not go into detail about that now, but it is another example of someone who has realised that the Bill is all pervasive and catches all sorts of people who perform a tremendous service to the community and bring enjoyment to many people.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Yesterday, I attended a social function that the Ventnor branch of the Isle of Wight Conservative Association organised. A young man called Christopher Philpott, who is a pupil at the middle school in Ventnor, expressed his concern—entirely unsolicited—that Punch and Judy shows would have to be licensed forthwith. When the Minister winds up, I should like him to state whether they need to be licensed and not merely say that the matter is in the hands of the licensing authority.
      Mr. Moss: I am sure that the Minister heard my hon. Friend's intervention. I expect that he will preface his remarks with, "It all depends."
      Another anomaly is that the Bill allows big-screen broadcasts and amplified juke boxes anywhere, but insists that live performance be licensed. It allows a play,

      89
      dance, disco or musical performance in a place of worship or at a garden fête, but insists on a licence when the same events are held in a school, university or restaurant. The Bill also insists that traditional song and dance on village greens should be licensed.
      What grounds do the Government cite for regulating live music? Noise was frequently mentioned in Committee, but when one examines the statistics, one wonders why it is such a major issue. The Noise Abatement Society states that noisy people outside the premises are the cause of 81 per cent. of complaints about pubs and bars. The United Kingdom Noise Association states that complaints about live music are relatively rare. Indeed, it receives more complaints about noisy recorded music. Under the Environmental Protection Act 1990, all local authorities can seize noisy equipment immediately and issue £20,000 noise abatement notices for compliance forthwith or in anticipation of a noise nuisance. Under current legislation, the police can close noisy pubs immediately for up to 24 hours. The Institute of Alcohol Studies, which canvasses the views of residents' associations, states that none has ever made an issue about live music.
      What about public safety? We understand that a radical new fire safety regime for workplaces is due to be published in mid 2004 and will be called the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order. It will apply to premises including cinemas, theatres, pubs and restaurants and cover the provision of entertainment irrespective of licensing requirements.
      Employers and the self-employed have statutory duties to make risk assessments of their work activities, covering risk to employees and others in connection with their work. Failure to undertake such risk assessment could lead to criminal prosecution. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 imposes a duty on employers to ensure as far as practicable the health and safety of employees and non-employees who may be affected.
      Event organisers, promoters and licensees are bound by this duty to ensure that premises are safe and without risks to health.
      Who is to be affected by the measures? What of the impact on those involved? Let us consider the folk arts in England. Forget Scotland—which has a much less onerous licensing regime—Ireland, where I am sure the regime is even more liberal, and Wales. Let us just look at England, where we have a rich living cultural heritage in the form of the various folk arts and customs, including music, song, dance, drama, storytelling, games and other customary events and celebrations. These folk art forms are true community arts; they are inherently participatory, encouraging imagination, aspiration and learning.
      Lembit Öpik: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the resurgence of magazines such as Folk Roots illustrates that there is currently a renaissance in English, Welsh and Scottish folk music? The concerns that he is raising are shared by the readers and authors of that magazine.
      Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman emphasises my point that this is a growing and developing part of our cultural heritage that ought to be encouraged rather than—
      90
      according to its practitioners' interpretation of the Bill, and ours—have its activities curtailed in one form or another.
      Folk art activity is extremely widespread, despite attracting relatively little attention in the mainstream arts listings and media. Let us look at the statistics. There are around 750 folk dance teams nationwide, including morris, clog, molly, longsword, rapper, Appalachian and other international styles. These teams involve more than 14,000 dancers, musicians and singers, and together they provide at least 10,500 folk dance events for at least 500,000 members of the public each year.
      Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman will be aware, having sat through the Committee proceedings and Second Reading, of the two-in-a-bar rule, under which two musicians, two dancers, two singers, or two people doing a recitation are allowed to perform. This great renaissance of folk music is taking place at a time when this law is in force. Is he saying that that renaissance is due entirely to the fact that two people, and only two people, can sing their way through an evening in a pub? Or is he saying that this golden age owes its existence to a very different legal regime from the one that exists now?
      Mr. Moss: I shall be coming to the two-in-a-bar problem later. To answer the Minister's question, the renaissance does not relate simply to the two-in-a-bar rule in pubs. We are not just talking about a renaissance of folk arts and music; it is general and across the board. These people perform in other places as well as pubs. Obviously the licensing implications will affect them when they carry out those activities in pubs, but I do not remember seeing many morris dancers doing their stuff inside the pub. Perhaps they do on some occasions, but they normally perform outside in the open air. I shall come to that matter later as well.
      There are at least 400 folk song, music and dance clubs in England. A minimum of 9,000 regular folk music sessions and singarounds take place in England each year, though hundreds more spontaneous, one-off events also occur. The greatest number of these folk arts activities are small scale and occur within local communities, outside the mainstream of arts planning and provision. On a community level, they are almost entirely voluntary and therefore highly sensitive to legislation, particularly when it carries cost implications.
      In my opening remarks, I alluded to the fact that many interested parties and groups had attempted to get their views across to the Department and, in particular, to the Minister. I remember addressing this issue in Committee, particularly in relation to the English Folk Dance and Song Society—EFDSS. On 8 May, in Committee, the Minister said:
      "I have had lengthy meetings with representatives of all the large morris, folk song and dance groups, including wassailers, storytellers and mummers. I took them through the Bill and they were much happier at the end of it than they were when we began." —[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 443.]
      But EFDSS has written to me at this late stage to say that it is concerned because
      "this is absolutely not the case."

      91
      The society says that it was grateful to the Minister for the meeting on 3 April, and that he had opened the door to further discussions between the society and the Department, but in reality it remained worried by the legislation and had
      "not received adequate answers to the specific questions"
      that it had raised. Here we are, discussing the Bill on Report, with Third Reading imminent and the Bill then going back to the other place, yet many of the questions that were rightly raised by these bodies have not been answered. The answers might not be the ones that they want to hear, but they do not think that they have had a fair or proper hearing.
      EFDSS has warned the Government that many folk music and song clubs that are currently not covered by entertainment licensing might become so under the new Bill. It states that many such clubs currently operate as private, members-only clubs which attendees have to join at least 48 hours before benefiting from any entertainment. It is their belief that there is therefore no requirement for them to have a public entertainments licence. EFDSS believes, however, that under the Bill, there will be no such get-out, and that the majority of England's 400 folk clubs could become licensable.
      EFDSS first submitted its concerns to the Department in February; so far, it has had no answer. It believes that the legislation relating to public safety is more than adequate to take care of the safety and noise aspects, and it has four questions that it wants to put to the Minister, through me. Perhaps he could answer them this evening in his response.
      "How does the Government feel that folk clubs will be affected by the Licensing Bill?
      Why is current, subsisting legislation deficient with regard to folk clubs?
      What is the pressing social need to extending entertainments licensing regulations to cover folk clubs when broadcast football matches and loud recorded music in pubs remains exempt?
      Does the Government feel that folk clubs are an acceptable casualty in the pursuit of its other licensing objectives?"
      Those are four excellent questions for the Minister to address.
      Coming to the two-in-a-bar rule, the Minister has made the point tonight and many times in Committee—and we understand this—that the rule is the only existing form of limited exemption for live music at the present time. The justifications that are given for the new proposals, however, do not read well with those involved. Paragraph 3.5 of an entertainment factsheet published by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport states:
      "It is quite possible for a single performer using amplified equipment to give rise to considerably greater nuisance than four or even more entertainers performing acoustically. The Government simply does not accept that live music in pubs is never a source of disturbance."
      We would never say "never", but the statistics on noise issues that I quoted earlier show that most complaints are not about the music inside the pubs but about noise outside the premises. In fact, no matter how noisy the playing of music and broadcast entertainment might be, they would be exempt from the new measures if they were incidental to the main business on the premises. It
      92
      is the view of EFDSS that such an exemption for incidental music is unsatisfactory and does not go far enough.
      The problem for those in the entertainment business, if I can call it that—the people involved in live music and entertainment of all kinds, most of it small scale—is not that it is easy to tick the box.
      How many times did the Minister say in Committee, "Well, all they've got to do is tick the box."? That, of course, is the DCMS mantra: when someone applies for a premises licence, a little box on the same application form can be ticked, which says, "Yes, I would like an entertainment licence to go with my alcohol licence." There is no additional fee on application for such an entertainment licence, but that is not the issue. The issue, of course, begins when all that gets to the licensing authority, which is the local authority.
      7.30 pm
      Mr. Kevan JonesDo the hon. Gentleman and others recognise that a pub or other venue has to apply for an alcohol licence and a separate entertainment licence, sometimes at great cost? That is putting off a lot of venues from applying. Surely the number of premises that consider putting on live entertainment will increase when there is one licence.
      Mr. Moss: That is wishful thinking, frankly. No one has done any research, and I have seen no analysis, to back up the hon. Gentleman's point. The Department and the Minister, and perhaps the hon. Gentleman, hope that that will be the case. Indeed, I hope that it will be the case, but among most landlords whom I have talked to out there in the real world, who have perhaps applied for public entertainment licences and had problems with local authorities or who have spoken to other licensees who have had difficulties and been involved with such costs, there is a feeling that ticking that box may lead them into all kinds of approaches from local authorities that will impose conditions and restrictions on them. Many people would happily not get involved with all that if they could avoid it.
      Mr. Jones: From my experience as chair of public health in Newcastle, I know that the disincentive is not the bureaucracy that the hon. Gentleman talks about, but the current law and the expense of applying for the public entertainment licence in the first place—sometimes people have to employ solicitors and go to a hearing—and, secondly, the cost of the licence. Under the Bill, that will be done away with. There will be one licence, which surely will make it a lot simpler for many of those people who would consider putting on live entertainment, but who are discouraged from doing so due to the bureaucracy and cost.
      Mr. Moss: The hon. Gentleman is continuing the argument that has been used over and over again by the DCMS, and I think it false. It leads people to believe that just by ticking that box they will be able to have any form of entertainment on their premises. That is not the case. When the local authorities look at the operating schedule and what is proposed, they will come round to inspect. In the local authorities that I know, when such people get involved, they then start nit-picking. They

      93
      will say, "If you have more than a certain number of people in here, you must put in a new fire door, a new exit, do this, do that." [Interruption.]
      I ask the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) to talk to the publicans in his area. I have talked to publicans in my constituency, and those who have recently applied for public entertainment licences do not complain about the cost of that application, although I accept the point—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman's local authority may charge through the roof; I do not know. In parts of Cambridgeshire, local authorities do not charge inordinate fees for the application.
      Mr. Jones rose—
      Mr. Moss: Let me finish my point. The hon. Gentleman must not be too eager. Now I have lost the thread, of course, which is exactly what he intended. It is not so much the cost of the application but the cost of the work that people are told to do so as to comply that worries them. If they are to have someone crawl all over their premises and dictate major improvements, they will not bother to tick the box. What will happen, which is even worse than the hon. Gentleman predicts, is that there will be not two in a bar, but none in a bar.
      Mr. Jones: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I doubt whether that will occur in most cases involving a small number of performers, but is he really suggesting to the House that he is against expense being incurred if there is a serious public safety risk that warrants an extra fire door being put in?
      Mr. Moss: I am not against measures for public safety, but I have been through a list of Acts of Parliament that deal with noise and safety and which cover most of those eventualities. The hon. Gentleman used the same argument in Committee and I repeat what I said then: we are not arguing that there should not be proper safety measures, but countless existing laws should take care of that situation. Why are we overburdening this sector of society with even more layers of bureaucracy?
      Dr. Howells: If that is the case and if all those laws are a terrible bureaucracy that will put off venue holders from allowing such events to happen, why does the Musicians Union have a code of practice on its website? It urges its members to insist on that code being used at existing venues to ensure that the inadequacies of the current system do not result in lots of injuries to its members, let alone to audiences that may pack in there. Why does the Musicians Union feel that that is necessary?
      The hon. Gentleman is now the great champion of the Musicians Union—it is wonderful to see Tories behaving in this way—so perhaps he will tell us why the need for additional safeguards has been mentioned on that website. The union insists on those safeguards because the existing system is not good enough to protect its members.
      Mr. Moss: I must admit that I have not seen that section of the website, so I am most grateful to the Minister for forcefully pointing it out to me. However,
      94
      I suspect that what is on that website is what I would call common-sense remarks saying, "If you are playing at any venue, be it a pub or anywhere else, make sure that the sockets and electrics are okay. Obviously, that will affect your equipment." It is common sense to recommend such things to those people.
      The Minister may confirm otherwise, but I am sure that the website does not say that people must put the appropriate legislation—the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, for example—on the table in front of the landlord and say, "Right, tell me whether you comply with all this before I start playing my oboe." I do not think that that is the case. Common-sense advice is being given to those who are involved.
      Mr. Roger WilliamsThere is considerable concern in my constituency over events such as the Brecon jazz festival. The Government seem to be punishing the Musicians Union for being prudent in looking after the interests of its members.
      Mr. Moss: I agree that the Musicians Union is being prudent, but there is a serious ramification if that jazz festival is being affected.
      Mr. Bob BlizzardI am a regular visitor to the Brecon jazz festival, which is a fantastic event, and I am only sorry that I cannot attend this year. I cannot believe that the event is not already licensed. Although parts of my speech will agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, I cannot believe that the Brecon jazz festival is threatened by the Bill.
      Mr. Moss: I must make another admission: I have not been to that jazz festival, so I am unable to comment on it in any shape or form.
      Dr. Howells: I was at the first Brecon jazz festival and I have been to virtually every one since. Will the hon. Gentleman take this from me? If the pubs and the other venues in Brecon were not licensed, the Brecon jazz festival would never have taken place. He is bound to know that after 60 hours of Committee sittings. If he does not know it, he ought to be ashamed of himself.
      Mr. Moss: I do not want to challenge the Minister, but perhaps he will point out the column of Hansard in which the Brecon jazz festival was mentioned in Committee. I do not remember it being mentioned. [Interruption.] Oh, it was, was it?
      Dr. Howells: I am sure that the festival was mentioned, but not as often as the Isle of Wight. The hon. Gentleman knows exactly what I mean: any venue where more than two musicians are playing has to have an entertainments licence under current law. If he believes that that is not true, perhaps he should stand up, say so and tell me how the Brecon jazz festival continues to thrive year after year.
      Mr. Moss: Who mentioned the Brecon jazz festival in the first place? I have not been, I am sure that it is administered and organised absolutely to the letter of the law, and I want to move on.

      95
      Let me end by quoting from a report published today or yesterday by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, entitled "Scrutiny of Bills Further Progress". Page 17 contains a couple of short paragraphs in heavy type which deal with the wonderful Bill that we are discussing. The Committee says
      "We take the view that there is a significant risk that the proposed system of exemptions from the licensing requirements and from the applicable fees as currently set out in the Licensing Bill might: give rise to an incompatibility with the right to be free of discrimination in respect of the enjoyment of the right to freedom of conscience, religion and belief under ECHR Articles 9 and 14 in so far as the exemption is given to premises used principally for the purposes of religion, or occupied by people or organisations on account of their religious beliefs or practices, and is denied to premises used principally for secular purposes, or occupied by people or organisations without a religious affiliation; and"
      —this bit is wonderful; it should be on the front pages of all tomorrow's newspapers—
      "leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime for public entertainment, and so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under ECHR Article 10.2. We draw these concerns to the attention of each House."
      I am happy to have helped to draw them to the attention of this House in particular.
      As I said earlier, amendment No. 63 is similar to an amendment that was passed in the other place and subsequently thrown out. We shall return to the issue again and again, because unless the Government have some bright ideas at the eleventh hour—which I suspect they will not—this seems to be the best way of exempting small live-music events from the draconian measures in the Bill.
      Amendment No. 109 is also similar to an amendment passed in the other place and removed in Committee. We cannot see why, if village and parish halls and community centres are to be exempt at least from fees, a similar exemption cannot be applied to educational establishments.
      Andrew BennettI should declare at the outset that I am a member of the Folklore Society, and that my wife is involved with its journal.
      I plead with the Minister to ensure—by amending the Bill if necessary—that traditional folk performances are not stamped out. Most have survived efforts to stamp them out by Cromwell and the Puritans, and by landlords and squires in the 17th and 18th centuries. They have survived the Victorian period, and all the commercial pressures. Their activities tend to be on a small scale.
      7.45 pm
      I was told by people involved with the Bill that many such folk performances would not require licensing, and would therefore not be caught by the Bill. I am not sure about that. I was told that there would be no problem because these were spontaneous events. It seemed that if some of us persuaded the Minister to celebrate after
      96
      Third Reading—if we went into one or two pubs, some songs were sung, a bit of music was played, perhaps a little play was put on about the Minister's performance today—all that would be perfectly all right, because the performance would be spontaneous.
      Dr. Howells: I am happy to confirm that it would indeed be all right.
      Andrew Bennett: If someone passed around a pint pot, asking for contributions so that the Minister could be presented with a small token of esteem—perhaps a little more drink—there would, again, be no difficulty. A good many folk performances are not very different from that, but they cannot be said to be spontaneous, because they have been taking place for at least 400 years.
      Lembit Öpik: Wales in general and mid-Wales in particular are awash with performances of this kind. They tend to take place weekly. I sometimes play the harmonica at The Grapes in Newtown: the Minister is welcome to come and enjoy the performance. It can hardly be described as spontaneous, however, as people come along every week to participate. The performers, and indeed the publican, could be in breach of the law without a licence.
      Andrew Bennett: I do not want to be drawn into that argument. I want to concentrate on performances with a long history. I see a series of anomalies. It would be easy for the Government to exempt such historic events. Some appear to be exempted already. I am not sure what is happening to the rush-cart ceremony, which concludes with rushes being taken into a church. Presumably it has already been exempted. However, similar events with no religious connotation would probably be covered by the Bill, which worries me.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: If my hon. Friend was playing the trumpet, the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) was playing his harmonica and, lo and behold, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) was playing another instrument, would they not need a licence now?
      Andrew Bennett: Yes, but in the case of many traditional performances the two-in-a-bar rule has been taken into account. We tend to see a fiddler and someone playing another instrument during pace-egging, souling and similar activities. The Minister must ensure that such traditional events are exempt.
      I understand that the Shrove Tuesday football matches are not covered by the legislation. I find that amazing. Huge numbers of people participate in the Haxey Hood football matches, which are far more violent than modern organised rugby matches, but they do not require a licence. Anyone going into the pub to do some singing in order to raise money to pay for the Hood, however, would be caught by the Bill.
      Mr. Jones: No, he would not.
      Andrew Bennett: I will not go into the matter with my hon. Friend, but I beg the Minister to tell me why, for instance, the Haxey Hood, the pace-eggers, the Britannic coconut dancers, the various groups of rush-bearers—some of whom do not go into churches—the Abbots Bromley horn dance and the souling at Antrobus will not need licences.
      Some of those groups have no interest in publicity; they simply want to continue a tradition that has gone on for a long time. Will the Minister therefore give an assurance that those people will not be harmed by the legislation?
      Nick HarveyThis group of amendments is useful, as the subjects that the amendments cover cut to the heart of the Bill's difficulties and the objections raised to it. The Government would be well advised to accept as many of the amendments as possible, and if they are not convinced by the letter, they should accept the spirit of a good number of them.
      Amendment No. 64, the first in the group, is particularly useful. The Government accepted the principle of incidental music, or music secondary to the principal business being carried out in particular premises, as a basis for exemption. However, I believe that the Minister's explanation in Committee of what constitutes incidental activity undid some of the good. The amendment is pertinent in focusing specifically on advertisement. If we take the view that any activity that is advertised cannot, by dint of its advertisement, be deemed secondary or subsidiary to the principal activity, it will not turn out to be much of a concession or exemption at all.
      I can think of several pubs in my own constituency that put out informal advertisements, perhaps on blackboards, announcing that they have live music every Friday night or Sunday lunchtime or whenever. I contend that that is incidental to the principal business of selling drink or food. When the Government first made the concession, I did not believe that such pubs would be caught out by dint of advertising, but the Minister's statements in Committee led us to that view. I readily grant the Minister the opportunity to put the record straight.
      Dr. Howells: I am always pleased to put the record straight for the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). The Bill does not exclude entertainment from the possibility of exemption on "incidental" grounds merely because it is advertised. If music is advertised, it may make it less likely to be incidental, but it certainly does not exclude advertised music from being defined as incidental. I hope that that answers the hon. Gentleman's question.
      Nick Harvey: I am grateful to the Minister for putting that on the record, because there has been an increasing tendency recently when matters are brought to court to pore over the proceedings of Standing Committees. It was my understanding that the Minister was leading us down that path in Committee, but I am pleased to hear what he has just said. I am sure that he is right: there is nothing in the Bill that places advertising on the wrong
      98
      side of the exemption. It was more the commentary around it in Committee that worried me. To hear what he has just said on Report is most helpful.
      Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his patience. Let me expand a little and say that it will be a matter of judgment both for the venue owner—if the hon. Gentleman will allow me to use that expression—who has to take a decision about how he presents the entertainment, and for the licensing authority, which may have to decide whether the principal attraction is the hon. Member for Montgomeryshire (Lembit Öpik) playing his harmonica in Newtown or the food and drink sold at the venue. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the judgment should be decided on a case-by-case basis. The strength is that it allows for flexibility, so a venue is not necessarily excluded from an exemption simply because his hon. Friend is playing an incidental harmonica.
      Nick Harvey: I favour a flexible approach and if we have established that a function does not fall on the wrong side of the line by dint of advertising alone, I greatly welcome it.
      Lembit Öpik: I can assure the Minister that, to the best of my knowledge, not a single person has ever visited The Grapes simply to hear my harmonica—the opposite is more likely. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) agrees that the Minister's seminal clarification is important to the example that I raised. In the light of that significant reassurance, does my hon. Friend accept that advertising does not necessarily exclude live performance from being denied a licence where it is fairly clear that a performance has not been billed as the main attraction or reason for visiting a tavern?
      Nick Harvey: I am also pleased to note another attempt to give exemptions to small events. The suggestion that events be made slightly smaller is realistic, because I am not convinced that the initial efforts on small events defined them as small enough. I hope that the Government will give further consideration to that perfectly sensible proposal even now.
      Amendment No. 132 deals with the anomaly of television and radio receivers. Many people outside the House made the point—and I did the same in Committee—that it is odd that a pop concert on a large television set with big speakers would not require a licence, whereas two or three performers standing close by and producing noise at much lower decibel levels would require one. The Government argued throughout that they did not want to introduce additional burdens of regulation in areas where they currently do not exist. In a manner of speaking, amendment No. 132 steps into that territory. It has the useful benefit of highlighting again that there is something nonsensical about the inconsistent treatment in parts of the legislation.
      Amendment No. 105 deals with traditional folk performances. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) proposed what many would regard as a simple way of dealing with the vexed

      99
      questions. Some of the difficulties to which he alluded remain real, because we have not had satisfactory answers to them. In the case of Morris dancers or other performers who are touring from one place to another, we have established that their activities would—whether by temporary event notices or premises licences—need to be licensed. If people are to perform far and wide and their activities are licensable, I can see them getting tied up in enormous amounts of red tape and, indeed, expense. No one believes that such traditional folk performers cause a public nuisance—or anything to which the public might take exception—so something along the lines of the amendment might well provide a good solution for the Government at this late stage.
      Mr. Sanders: Unless the Bill is changed, is there not a danger of giving local authority licensing officers enormous powers to determine who and what activity is or is not licensable? I have severe doubts about whether such officers will exercise their powers in the way that the Minister hopes they will.
      Nick Harvey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. If, in the early days of the legislation coming into force, local authorities held that various activities required a licence, I would be concerned that it might have an adverse effect. My fear is that some of the traditional groups that tour the country entertaining in one place or another will begin to lose the will to continue and give up the ghost.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: I thought that the Liberal Democrats were the party of local government. Each local authority will have to produce a locally determined licensing policy, which will be able to reflect local circumstances, such as the prevalence of folk music and other interests.
      8 pm
      Nick Harvey: Local authorities will be required to present local policies, but they will have to accord with the legislation and the objectives mapped out in it. Some of these traditional groups move from village to village, and they might move from one local authority area to another, with the real danger that the whole process becomes so cumbersome that they conclude that it is not worth their while. The Government would do well to consider the amendment. I appreciate that the list in amendment No. 105 cannot be deemed to be exclusive, and no doubt my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) would wish to include wassailing. However, the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish attempts to cover that problem by including the words
      "other traditional folk performances of a similar character".
      I suspect that lawyers will make a lot of money arguing that all sorts of other things fulfil those criteria, so I do not claim that the amendment is perfect. However, the Government would be well advised to try to address the point it makes.
      100
      I would welcome clarification from the Minister on the question of educational establishments, as mentioned in amendment No. 109. What is the Government's position? I understood that they had agreed the principle of some exemption, and I am confused about what they now propose to allow.
      The amendments suggest various forms of exemption for various forms of entertainment and they encapsulate the concerns that have been raised in the months of the Bill's passage through Parliament. They include some ideas that the Government would be well advised to adopt, even at this late stage, to try to prevent the Bill from having all sorts of unfortunate unforeseen effects on and consequences for areas of public life that no one would wish to see wither, but which could be in genuine danger.
      Diana OrganThe amendments cover forms of exempted entertainment and I wish to raise the issue of a form of entertainment that is very popular in pubs and clubs in the midlands and north of England, but which is subject to hardly any licensing or regulation—and I and many others are very concerned by that. I refer to stage hypnosis. Hypnosis is a complex phenomenon, in which the subject is put into a state of heightened concentration and becomes greatly suggestible.
      The practitioner of stage hypnosis may have had only half an hour of tuition. Guidelines have been laid down for those using hypnosis as a form of entertainment. They include having to remain on the premises for half an hour after the event, or having to have public liability insurance. In most cases, the activity is subject to very little regulation, but it can do huge damage to members of the audience. People have been known to die a few hours after being subjected to stage hypnosis. Others have had their lives completely traumatised.
      The Bill is welcomed by many people in the music and entertainment industry, because it is a complete overhaul of our archaic licensing laws. The Bill will introduce a 21st century licensing framework for an industry that is important to many of us, be it through music or any other form of entertainment. Many aspects of the Bill have been highly controversial, but I wish to point out to the Minister that it contains no regulation for stage hypnosis.
      People who have had a couple of hours' training in hypnotism can be let loose on an audience and can do incalculable damage, because they may not have asked the audience if anybody suffers from epilepsy or schizophrenia, or whether anyone has suffered a recent trauma or is on medication. All those factors can have a detrimental effect if the person is hypnotised. I wish that I had been able to raise the issue earlier in the Bill's progress, because a constituent of mine, Mr. Robert Mitchell, has suffered great trauma because of stage hypnosis. He was hypnotised in the name of entertainment, at a sales conference at a hotel in the west midlands, and it has wrecked his life, including his working life. I hope that the Minister will find a way, if necessary though other legislation or orders, to reconsider the regulation of that, at present, unlicensed activity.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: This group of amendments should be called the Punch and Judy amendments. I am sure that the Government had the best of intentions when bringing forward the Bill. The intention was deregulatory, and aimed to provide a single route for application for licences, instead of the multiple routes we have at present. However, those who were members of the Committee can testify that there is no coherent thread running through the Government's decisions about what should and what should not be licensed. The hon. Member for Forest of Dean (Diana Organ) illustrated that point perfectly. The application of the licensing objectives laid down at the beginning of the Bill is inconsistent with regard to the content of schedule 1.
      I shall refer in particular to amendments Nos. 132, 105 and 160. As the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) pointed out, amendment No. 132 tries to pin down the Government on why it should be a requirement for films to be licensed when it is not necessary to license big-screen television. Both forms of entertainment might produce the same amount of volume and be watched on the same size screen in the same premises by the same number of people, with the same effect on those living in the area. It is entirely inconsistent for broadcast television not to be licensed and I hope that the Minister will explain why that is the case.
      Dr. Howells rose—
      Mr. Turner: I give way to the Minister, but I wish first to echo my hon. Friend's congratulations to him on his new appointment.
      Dr. Howells: I thank the hon. Gentleman doubly, for giving way and for congratulating me. I am chuffed that he did so. He knows that there are specific reasons why the exhibition of films in film theatres is licensed. Those reasons date back to the early days of film when the film stock and projectors used were liable to burst into flame—and often did. As a consequence, the exhibition of films was governed by very specific laws. That did not happen with television, as the hon. Gentleman also knows. The Bill is deregulatory in intent, and we did not wish to extend legislation to cover areas that are currently not regulated. That is the reason for the apparent anomaly.
      Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that explanation. He has demonstrated that the Bill will not introduce 21st century regulation for entertainment—as the hon. Member for Forest of Dean suggested. In fact, it will retain early 20th century regulation for no better reason than that cinematograph projectors used to burst into flame. I accept that there is another reason, to do with the regulation of what is shown by the projectors.
      If it is merely intended to protect children and other youngsters from seeing films that are unsuitable, film entertainment does not need to be licensed in the panoply of ways that will be required as a result of its inclusion in schedule 1. That is my first point, and I should be very happy if the Minister is able later to provide an explanation that defeats it.
      102
      I am glad to support amendment No. 105, tabled by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). I hope that the words
      "traditional folk performances of a similar character"
      may extend to Punch and Judy shows. The Bill makes it a requirement that morris-dancing in pub car parks, on village greens, under oak trees and in a multitude of other locations must be licensed. It also means that Punch and Judy shows will have to be licensed.
      Mr. Sanders: A Punch and Judy proprietor in my constituency entertains many children every day in the summer months, and he is concerned about whether he will require a licence in order to perform or whether the local authority will need a licence in order for him to perform on its premises—in this case, a beach in my constituency.
      Mr. Turner:My constituent Mr. David Randini is equally concerned for the same reasons. I see no reason for them to be concerned about whether they must be licensed: the Bill is absolutely clear, and they do. A Punch and Judy show is
      "a performance of a play"
      under paragraph 2(1)(a) of schedule 1. It
      "takes place in the presence of an audience and is provided for the purpose, or for purposes which include the purpose, of entertaining that audience."
      That is why Punch and Judy shows take place, and they will, therefore, be a licensable activity. They will have to be licensed.
      The hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones), now not in his place, suggested that licensing authorities could get around that by producing a licensing policy. I am afraid that the hon. Member for North Devon was right to respond by saying that the licensing policy must be within the law. If the Bill is passed, the law will be what is contained in schedule 1. We cannot avoid the need to licence a Punch and Judy show by writing a slightly vague licensing policy.
      The hon. Member for North Durham, whom I am pleased to see returning to the Chamber, has repeatedly said, in Committee and this evening, that most of the things to which I refer have to be licensed already, and that there is therefore no greater licensing requirement. I hope that I have represented him correctly; he smirks, but I am sure that he means it as a nod. Perhaps such entertainments should be licensed, but the fact is that they are not. I discussed that with the chief executive of my own local authority, who was surprised to discover that morris-dancing would have to be licensed under the Bill. He was even more surprised to discover that the Minister believed that morris-dancing was already a licensable activity. The Isle of Wight council does not license morris-dancing. I hope that it never has to do so.
      Newcastle city council, on which the hon. Member for North Durham was chairman of the public health committee, may have licensed morris-dancers, pace-eggers—whatever they may be—and Punch and Judy shows, if they were fortunate enough to have such things on the banks of the Tyne. However, such activities are not licensed by every authority in whose areas they take place. That is the problem.
      Dr. Howells: The hon. Gentleman seems to be telling the House that a local authority—namely, the Isle of Wight—was ignorant of the law. Consequently, he says, it was an exemplary local authority in that it did not attempt to license and monitor particular activities, including, in his example, morris-dancing. Is he saying that when the House considers law, we should not change it if local authorities such as his have a chief executive who clearly does not understand his role? Is he suggesting that we should try to pretend that the law that exists does not in fact exist just because a local authority for whatever reason—whether it turns a blind eye or is unaware of the law—does not carry out its statutory functions? Is that what the hon. Gentleman is saying?
      8.15 pm
      Mr. Turner: No, he is not. Nor is he saying that the Isle of Wight council is an exemplary authority. He is saying merely that if that is what happens in one council, it may well happen in other local authorities too. It is because the law is not properly observed that people feel that the Bill is not a deregulatory measure. I am not arguing that the Minister's intentions are not pure; they are, I am sure, as pure as the driven snow. The problem is that morris-dancing is not at present licensed in many parts of the country, so far as I can judge from representations made to me. After the Bill becomes law, it will have to be licensed, as will Punch and Judy shows. I cannot understand why the Minister wants to go down in history as the man who wanted to regulate Punch and Judy shows.
      Mr. David HeathIs not the history entirely irrelevant? We have before us a Bill that does things that many Members of this House believe to be foolish and unnecessary. For that reason, we should argue that its foolish and unnecessary elements should be left out.
      Mr. Turner: That is a better argument than the one that held the Isle of Wight council up to ridicule and contempt.
      Dr. Howells: This is absurd. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) should know better than to say what he said. He knows that the law exists as it is; there is no way around that. In attempting to put the law regarding public entertainment on a much better basis, we believe that we will improve the situation. We shall not do that by pretending that the current law does not exist. Just because a local authority, perhaps for the best of reasons, may not enforce it—I hope, in fact, that lots of local authorities will in future decide to exempt all sorts of activities—we cannot pretend that the law is not what it is. That is complete nonsense.
      Mr. Turner: The Minister is going down a dangerous road. He hopes that many local authorities will in future decide to exempt—
      Dr. Howells: As they do now.
      Mr. Turner: I agree; they do now. They may decide to do so, or they may exempt things out of ignorance, but
      104
      they do exempt things now. The Minister is saying that many local authorities will be able to decide to exempt—Hansard will show whether I have understood his words correctly—activities of the sort that we are discussing. However, under the Bill, local authorities will not have the power to exempt 'such activities. Either they are licensable activities, or they are not.
      Mr. Sanders: Clearly, local authorities that are not enforcing the law do not necessarily do so in ignorance. They have a duty to enforce the law when the law breaking is pointed out. The fact that no one has pointed it out and that the law is not known means that such activities have been able to go ahead. That is not an exemption, but under the new Bill, when the new law is brought to everyone's attention, there will be a blanket ban on activities that have been taken for granted.
      Mr. Turner: I am sorry that the Minister finds my argument either difficult or dull—
      Dr. Howells: Just daft.
      Mr. Turner: I am sorry, but it is not a daft argument. We have the opportunity to decide whether Punch and Judy shows will be licensable in future. That is what the amendments provide for. My amendment No. 160 provides for that in a different way.
      Whether we describe the Bill as regulatory or deregulatory is irrelevant to its content. Its content is absurd because, as the Minister said in Committee, the Government would "certainly encourage" local authorities
      "to obtain premises licences for public spaces … where there is any demand by groups of dancers, folk singers or anyone else who wanted to use that area."—[Official Report, Standing Committee D, 8 May 2003; c. 449.]
      The Minister believes that such activities are licensable.
      Once the Bill becomes law, there will be guidance from the Department in the law. Conferences of local authority licensing officers will be held; they will attempt to interpret and assist local authorities in implementing the law, but they cannot amend schedule 1—only we and those in another place can do that, and we should he doing so tonight.
      Mr. Blizzard: I want to speak to amendment No. 161, which I tabled in order to revisit some of our arguments and debates in Committee on this part of the Bill.
      On Thursday, when I tabled the amendment, I thought that I would have to be careful not to try the patience of my hon. Friend the Minister too much when I was trying to persuade him to reconsider certain matters. Then, when I looked at the No. 10 Downing street website on Friday afternoon, I thought that it would be even more important to put my arguments because a new Minister would be in charge of the Bill. However, my hon. Friend is still with us and I am glad about that. I hope not to try his patience but I want to have one more go at putting my case.
      As everyone realises, the aim of the Bill is to deregulate and simplify, and much of it does so. However, in at least one sphere it extends regulation to a currently unregulated activity: small performances,

      105
      especially music—small gigs. It is no surprise that, when the Government try to extend regulation to an unregulated sector, there is immediate concern. My concern is that the Government have not yet provided evidence of the need to regulate such activities. People are asking whether the Bill's response is really proportionate to whatever complaints may have been made. I understand that the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has carried out a study into noise and licensing reform. Can the Minister tell us about the progress of that study? Was it taken into account in formulating the measure?
      Concern turned into vociferous opposition from some quarters when it was discovered that big-screen broadcast entertainment—video jukeboxes and sports bars—would not be licensable and that there would apparently be no limit on amplification. In many cases, such entertainment would be a larger and louder event than the kind of small gigs that I am talking about.
      I do not want the Government to be ridiculed or criticised, and I am concerned that that may happen. We could end up with a situation where a large number of football fans were watching an England game on one of those big screens; they could enjoy England beating the opposition and erupt when David Beckham scored the winner. Whatever nuisance that event caused, it would not be licensable, yet the solo guitar strummer or the lone pianist would be licensable. The comments made during the debate about incidental entertainment have been helpful, although I am concerned about how different local authorities might interpret the provisions. That point leads me to the root of my concern.
      My concern was not provoked by the Musicians Union lobby. Some of that lobbying was over the top and has been counter-productive because it hardened attitudes. My concern stems from my experience of how local authorities can operate, especially in rural areas. As a councillor, and as leader of a district council for six years, I have seen what can happen on licensing and planning panels—certain aspects of planning legislation are comparable to these provisions.
      Such panels and committees can make a considerable meal of what are often not very substantial objections. As has been said, it is simple enough to tick the box; the problem is that ticking the box is merely the entry to a form of local authority decision making about which many people are fearful. I am concerned about that.
      There could be two unfortunate consequences. The first relates to rural areas. In such areas, there is not much musical entertainment. There are not many venues; they tend to be pubs, many of which operate the two-in-a-bar rule, with no entertainment licence. Currently, when an establishment in a village or market town wants to apply for an entertainment licence, there are often objections and opposition, because these days so many people move to the country for a quiet life. They then become rather over-anxious about what might happen at entertainment venues.
      A high proportion of elderly people live in the countryside and they get worried about bands of young tearaways attending such events. In my experience, they lobby their local councillor, which is not difficult
      106
      because councillors, too, are concerned about events in the village. The councillor talks to people on the planning committee or the licensing committee. Sometimes the application is turned down; sometimes it is just caught up in the process or deferred. That is how a meal can be made out of such things, quite apart from the attention of over-zealous council officers who sometimes have their own way of making a mountain out of a molehill.
      There is a shortage of entertainment in rural areas, so young people go off to the towns, in cars—because there is no other transport—often with disastrous consequences.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: I appreciate my hon. Friend's point about local licensing boards making a meal out of an Oxo cube, but if people are turned down for a licence, under the Bill, do they not have the right of appeal to the magistrates court?
      Mr. Blizzard: Yes, but quite a meal might have been created before that point. Appeal to the magistrates court would be yet another course in the meal. Currently, people do not get caught up in that process. I am concerned that some establishments that currently offer unlicensed entertainment may be turned down when they apply for a licence because there are objections. Furthermore, the whole process may take a long time.
      That brings me to my second point, which does not apply only to rural areas. If a landlord were not really bothered about whether he put on certain types of entertainment, he might not do so at all if he thought that he would have to follow a long and onerous road to get a licence. If he knew that he would have extra custom and make some money, he would go through the process.
      I am concerned about minority forms of music. Some hon. Members have mentioned folk music; as I said earlier, I am keen on jazz. Often it is not easy for folk and jazz musicians to find venues. Some landlords are not keen to put them on because they do not attract huge audiences. Lovers of that music are worried that some venues might get squeezed out if landlords feel that it is not worth getting a licence.
      Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend knows as well as I do that live music has been distorted for years in this country by the two-in-a-bar rule and that jazz has suffered especially. Is he suggesting that we should somehow defend the existing regime?
      Mr. Blizzard indicated dissent.
      Dr. Howells: My hon. Friend is not suggesting that.
      Mr. Blizzard: My hon. Friend intervenes at just the right time, as I was about to say next that the two-in-a-bar rule is intellectually unsound. That regime is not defensible, but it has given rise to a certain de minimis arrangement. That is the purpose of amendment No. 161, as I believe that, if we are to have a modern and reformed licensing regime, we need to consider some form of de minimis arrangement that permits the activities that I have been talking about, allows them to continue and prevents them from being squeezed out.

      107
      8.30 pm
      I have not tried to define the de minimis regime in amendment No. 161 because I am sure that I would be shot down if I did so. I tried to do so using various arguments in Committee, but I am trying to ensure that the sort of entertainment that takes place in rural areas at the moment and minority forms of music can continue, so I ask my hon. Friend to put on his thinking cap and, with his officials, try to come up with some de minimis regime.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is making an excellent case—exactly the case that I would want to make if I had the opportunity. Is he not really saying that there is no need to introduce a remedy when there is no mischief, and that there is no mischief when there is no disturbance to the outside world, where no transgression of existing health and safety rules takes place and when a performance in a given venue causes no problem for anyone and those who want to witness the performance enjoy it?
      Mr. Blizzard: I am saying that there is no need to license every form of musical activity.
      I want to leave time for my hon. Friend the Minister to respond to all the points that have been made in the debate, so I just ask him to accept the case for a de minimis arrangement and to consider devising one. May I give an example? We have had live music in the House of Commons. It is not the order of the day—it may even be frowned upon—but a little live jazz was performed acoustically in the Terrace Pavilion last year. We had Andy Sheppard on sax and John Parricelli on guitar. Perhaps the sound was a bit distorted, but that happened and it did not disturb anything that goes on in this place; nor did it disturb the House authorities. In fact, people much appreciated the chance to listen to that music and enjoy it. If we can do that here, we should allow it to continue to happen in various establishments throughout the country.
      I hope that we can avoid the ridicule of the comparison between recorded, big screen, broadcast entertainment and small, live entertainment. I fear that, if we do not get this right, the arguments will come bouncing back to the House again.
      Hywel WilliamsI rise to speak because I am interested in promoting and enabling small-scale rural and Welsh language events. In particular, I refer to local eisteddfodau. The Minister will be very familiar with them, but I should explain to other hon. Members that they are essentially amateur, small-scale, competitive village events in singing, other forms of music and poetry. They are often held at community or village level, in a variety of venues, such as chapels, churches and chapel and church halls, so they are subject to certain legislative regulation, but they are also held in pubs and increasingly in hotels, as well as in schools.
      Amendments Nos. 62 and 63 are eminently sensible in situations where eisteddfodau should not be regulated. They often close down before 11.30 pm, and fewer than 200 people are usually involved. In fact, if everyone in most small rural communities attended, they would still involve fewer than 200 people.
      108
      I wish to consider what would be achieved by regulating eisteddfodau in terms of the aims of the White Paper, which are to reduce crime and disorder. The Minister will know that, at the crowning or the chairing of the poet in an eisteddfod, the cry goes up, "A oes heddwch?"—"Is there peace?" The audience must respond, "Peace", or the event cannot continue. They are essentially peaceable events.
      What about encouraging tourism? Certainly, eisteddfodau are an untapped source of tourism for rural Wales. What about reducing alcohol misuse? They are very often teetotal. What about encouraging rural self-sufficient communities? Eisteddfodau should be encouraged, as an obvious example of what can happen in self-sufficient rural communities. Eisteddfodau are not a problem, and they should be exempted from the Bill.
      Dr. Howells: We have had an excellent debate on this set of amendments. Before I address amendment No. 64, with which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) opened the debate, let me say that I accept and understand completely much of what has been said. The Government amended the Bill in Committee to exempt from the provision of regulated entertainment incidental live music in certain circumstances in response to concerns raised in another place. The exemption relating to incidental music represents a major deregulation from current licensing controls. It was part of a package of concessions that we have made since the Bill was introduced to broaden the significant liberalisation of the entertainment licensing regime that it is designed to bring about.
      Some of the other concessions in that package include: exempting places of public religious worship; amending the Bill to make it clear that entertainers who simply perform at unlicensed venues and do no more in respect of the entertainment will not commit an offence; announcing that we will exempt church halls, village halls and other community buildings from fees associated with regulated entertainment and, in a similar exemption, entertainment provided at schools and sixth-form colleges by the institution.
      The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire asked a valid question, which we debated at length in Committee, about higher and further education institutions, and I want to repeat that, in the long-distant past, I remember going to lots of gigs with very big bands and very big audiences at universities. Indeed, that is one of the most lucrative parts of the entertainment trade. I am sure that he would have doubts about trying to compare what may happen in a primary or secondary school hall with the kinds of events—sometimes enormous rock concerts—that can take place in our larger universities.
      We will certainly use the accompanying guidance to underscore the requirement that only necessary and proportionate conditions are attached to licences. My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) expressed fears that we would let loose local authorities on the poor venue owners, for whom life would be made unbearable. I want to make several responses to that. First, it is vital that the House should know that this

      109
      Government believe wholeheartedly in encouraging live music, drama and dance. In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett), we will ensure that there is no doubt whatever in the minds of local authorities, either in relation to the statutory guidance that we will issue or discussions that the Department—I keep calling it my Department, but it is not my Department any more—for Culture, Media and Sport will have, and have had, with local authorities, that we expect cultural expression to be an important part of the life of every area, and that they will be expected to encourage it everywhere. That is an important consideration. I will respond more specifically to the points that he raised later, but I want to place them within that context.
      We have exempted live music to the extent that it is incidental to some other activity, which is not itself entertainment or the provision of entertainment facilities as described in the Bill, bringing it into line with the exemption for incidental recorded music—such as that provided through juke boxes and, of course, the dreaded muzak, which one might encounter in lifts or hotel lobbies—in the Bill as originally drafted. Hon. Members might question that last point, but I am afraid that, however much I might wish it to do so, the Bill does not make distinctions on grounds of taste. That is a serious issue. Every example about which we have heard tonight is of a civilised group playing quiet music with moderate amplification. No one mentioned the fact that if we take away the two-in-a-bar rule—which I am entirely in favour of doing—there is nothing to stop a suddenly unregulated venue from putting on music that might have huge amplification. Were that to happen, I can guarantee that the welter of letters that some right hon. and hon. Members have received from some constituents, mostly those in the Musicians Union, will appear as a mere trickle compared with the letters that they will start to get from residents who will have no defence whatever from bands playing in unregulated venues at such volume that they are blown into next week. If we are to be honest, we should mention that.
      In Committee, much of the debate focused on the definition of incidental live music, as well it might. As is often the case, the Government amendment reflected the spirit of concerns raised by certain lobby groups. In response to the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, I accept none of his criticisms about not having consulted and discussed matters with lobby groups from all manner of music and entertainment sectors. I spent many hours doing so, and many more hours answering written submissions from those sorts of people when it was impossible to meet them. For example, there was a great deal of lobbying at a late stage from individuals such as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) about giving historic churches the same kind of exemption—
      It being Two hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Questions necessary to dispose of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 144, Noes 295.

      Division No. 233]

      [8:43 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Amess, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Lamb, Norman

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Bacon, Richard

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Barker, Gregory

      Loughton, Tim

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Barrett, John

      MeIntosh. Miss Anne

      Bellingham, Henry

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Bercow, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Blunt, Crispin

      Maples, John

      Boswell, Tim

      Maude, rh Francis

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Brazier, Julian

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Breed, Colin

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Moss, Malcolm

      Burnett, John

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Burstow, Paul

      Öpik, Lembit

      Burt, Alistair

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Butterfill, John

      Ottaway, Richard

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Page, Richard

      Cash, William

      Paice, James

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Paterson, Owen

      Pickles, Eric

      Chidgey, David

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Chope, Christopher

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Collins, Tim

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Cotter, Brian

      Randall, John

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Redwood, rh John

      Curry, rh David

      Rendel, David

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Ruffley, David

      Dodds, Nigel

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Doughty, Sue

      Sanders, Adrian

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Selous, Andrew

      Evans, Nigel

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Simmonds, Mark

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Flook, Adrian

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Forth, rh Eric

      Spring, Richard

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Gidley, Sandra

      Steen, Anthony

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Streeter, Gary

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Stunell, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Gummer, rh John

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Hammond, Philip

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      Hancock, Mike

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Harvey, Nick

      Thurso, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Trend, Michael

      Heald, Oliver

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Heath, David

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Viggers, Peter

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Walter, Robert

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Waterson, Nigel

      Holmes, Paul

      Watkinson, Angela

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Whittingdale, John

      Howard, rh Michael

      Wiggin, Bill

      Hunter, Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Willis, Phil

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Wilshire, David

      111

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Mr. Robert Syms and

      Young, rh Sir George

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Cummings, John

      Ainger, Nick

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Alexander, Douglas

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Allen, Graham

      David, Wayne

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Davidson, Ian

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Dawson, Hilton

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Denham, rh John

      Austin, John

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Baird, Vera

      Dismore, Andrew

      Banks, Tony

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Barren, rh Kevin

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bayley, Hugh

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Beard, Nigel

      Doran, Frank

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Bell, Stuart

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Benn, Hilary

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Berry, Roger

      Edwards, Huw

      Best, Harold

      Efford, Clive

      Betts, Clive

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Blackman, Liz

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Farrelly, Paul

      Blizzard, Bob

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Borrow, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Flint, Caroline

      Brennan, Kevin

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Follett, Barbara

      Foster, rh Derek

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Browne, Desmond

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Bryant, Chris

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foulkes, rh George

      Burden, Richard

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Burnham, Andy

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Gardiner, Barry

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Gerrard, Neil

      Cairns, David

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Gilroy, Linda

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Goggins, Paul

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Caton, Martin

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Challen, Colin

      Hain, rh Peter

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Chaytor, David

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hanson, David

      Healey, John

      Clelland, David

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hendrick, Mark

      Cohen, Harry

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Coleman, Iain

      Heppell, John

      Connarty, Michael

      Heyes, David

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hodge, Margaret

      Corston, Jean

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Cousins, Jim

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Cranston, Ross

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Crausby, David

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Seftron E)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      112

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Olner, Bill

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Organ, Diana

      Illsley, Eric

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Owen, Albert

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Perham, Linda

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Picking, Anne

      Jamieson, David

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Jones, Martyn (ClwydS)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Prescott, rh John

      Kueble, Ms Sally

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kemp, Fraser

      Purchase, Ken

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Purnell, James

      Kidney, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rammell, Bill

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

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

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Lammy, David

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Rooney, Terry

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Ruane, Chris

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Sawford, Phil

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McCafferty, Chris

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacDonald, Calum

      Short, rh Clare

      MacDougall, John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      McFall, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McIsaac, Shona

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McNamara, Kevin

      McNulty, Tony

      Southworth, Helen

      MacShane, Denis

      Spellar, rh John

      McWalter, Tony

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWilliam, John

      Stevenson, George

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Stringer, Graham

      Martlew, Eric

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Michael, rh Alun

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Miliband, David

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Mole, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Tipping, Paddy

      Mountford, Kali

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Mudie, George

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Mullin, Chris

      Trickett, Jon

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Truswell, Paul

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      113

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Woolas, Phil

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Worthington, Tony

      Ward, Claire

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watts, David

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      White, Brian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Joan Ryan and

      Vernon Coaker

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Amendment proposed: No. 63, in page 112, line 18, at end insert—
      'Small events—live music
      (1) The provision of entertainment consisting of the performance of live music is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act where—

      (a) the number of listeners or spectators present does not exceed 200 at any one time, and

      (b) the entertainment ceases no later than 11.30 pm.

      (2) The provision of entertainment facilities solely for the purposes of entertainment described in subparagraph (1) is not to be regarded as the provision of regulated entertainment for the purposes of this Act.
      (3) Nothing in this paragraph shall be read as rendering invalid or otherwise affecting any provision of, or any regulation made under, any other legislation that applies to the entertainment, the entertainment facilities or the premises on which the entertainment is to take place.'.—[Mr. Moss.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 146, Noes 284.

      Division No. 234]

      [8:57 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Amess, David

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Arbuthnot rh James

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bacon, Richard

      Doughty, Sue

      Barker, Gregory

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Duncan Smith, rh lain

      Barrett, John

      Evans, Nigel

      Bellingham, Henry

      Fabricant, Michael

      Bercow, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Blunt, Crispin

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Boswell, Tim

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Flook, Adrian

      Brazier, Julian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Breed, Colin

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Gidley, Sandra

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Burnett, John

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Burns, Simon

      Grayling, Chris

      Burstow, Paul

      Gummer, rh John

      Burt, Alistair

      Hammond, Philip

      Butterfill, John

      Hancock, Mike

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Harvey, Nick

      Cash, William

      Hawkins, Nick

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Heald, Oliver

      Heath, David

      Chidgey, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Chope, Christopher

      Hendry, Charles

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Collins, Tim

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Cotter, Brian

      Holmes, Paul

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Curry, rh David

      Howard, rh Michael

      114

      Hunter, Andrew

      Ruffley, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Selous, Andrew

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Shepherd, Richard

      Lamb, Norman

      Simmonds, Mark

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Loughton, Tim

      Spring, Richard

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Steen, Anthony

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Streeter, Gary

      Malins, Humfrey

      Stunell, Andrew

      Maples, John

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Maude, rh Francis

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Thurso, John

      Trend, Michael

      Moss, Malcolm

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

      Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Viggers, Peter

      Öpik, Lembit

      Walter, Robert

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Waterson, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Watkinson, Angela

      Page, Richard

      Whittingdale, John

      Paice, James

      Wiggin, Bill

      Paterson, Owen

      Willetts, David

      Pickles, Eric

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Willis, Phil

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Wilshire, David

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Randall, John

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Redwood, rh John

      Young, rh Sir George

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Mr. Robert Syms and

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Ainger, Nick

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Alexander, Douglas

      Browne, Desmond

      Allen, Graham

      Bryant, Chris

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Burden, Richard

      Burnham, Andy

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cairns, David

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Baird, Vera

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Caplin, Ivor

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caton, Martin

      Beard, Nigel

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Challen, Colin

      Bell, Stuart

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benn, Hilary

      Chaytor, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clapham, Michael

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Best, Harold

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Betts, Clive

      Blackman, Liz

      Clelland, David

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Borrow, David

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Coleman, Iain

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Connarty, Michael

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      115

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Corston, Jean

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Cousins, Jim

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Cranston, Ross

      Crausby, David

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Cruddas, Jon

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Cummings, John

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Illsley, Eric

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      David, Wayne

      Davidson, Ian

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jamieson, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dawson, Hilton

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Denham, rh John

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Jowell rh Tessa

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Doran, Frank

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Mania (L'pool Garston)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Edwards, Huw

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Efford, Clive

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ennis, Jeff (Bansley E)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Farrelly, Paul

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

      Lammy, David

      Fisher, Mark

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Flint, Caroline

      Leslie Christopher

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Levitt Tom (Hjgh Peak)

      Follett, Barbara

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Lyons John (Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foulkes, rh George

      McCabe, Stephen

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gardiner, Barry

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDougall, John

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McFall John

      Gilroy, Linda

      McIsaac, Shona

      Godsiff, Roger

      McKechin, Ann

      Goggins, Paul

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hain, rh Peter

      MacShane, Denis

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McWalter, Tony

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McWilliam, John

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Hanson, David

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Healey, John

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Martlew, Eric

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Michael, rh Alun

      Heppell, John

      Miliband, David

      Heyes, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hinchliffe, David

      Mole, Chris

      Hodge, Margaret

      Morley, Elliot

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Mountford, Kali

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mudie, George

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Mullin, Chris

      116

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Southworth, Helen

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Spellar, rh John

      O'Hara, Edward

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Stevenson, George

      Organ, Diana

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Owen, Albert

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Perham, Linda

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Picking, Anne

      Stringer, Graham

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Plaskitt, James

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Timms, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Prescott, rh John

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Trickett, Jon

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Truswell, Paul

      Purchase, Ken

      Turner, Dr Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Purnell, James

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Rammell, Bill

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Ward, Claire

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Watts, David

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

      White, Brain

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Rooney, Terry

      Wills, Michael

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Winnick, David

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Ruane, Chris

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Sawford, Phil

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Wyatt, Derek

      Short, rh Clare

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Singh, Marsha

      John Ryan and

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Vernon Coaker

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 16

      APPLICANT FOR PREMISES LICENCE
      Dr. Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 65, in page 9, line 35, leave out paragraph (h).
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 91.
      Dr. Howells: The Government have tabled amendment to the Bill exempting premises that, at the time the activity is carried out, are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the armed forces. That will have the effect of exempting serves messes and certain other armed forces facilities from the provisions of the Bill. We recognise the special status of messes and other service facilities. Messes are effectively

      117
      the homes of many of the men and women serving in the forces. The exemption also takes into account the unique operational circumstances of the forces, especially the impracticalities associated with the highly mobile nature of service life. Activities in messes and the other armed forces facilities concerned are already subject to Queen's regulations and locally issued service instructions. The Government consequently take the view that they should be treated exceptionally.
      Mr. Mark Hoban: Adjacent to my constituency is a naval base, where there is a theatre that is occasionally used by community groups as a venue for fundraising. Will the Minister explain whether use by community groups for fundraising purposes is also exempt under the amendments?
      Dr. Howells: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I shall certainly look into the matter for him to see whether the theatre is technically part of the mess. Perhaps he would be kind enough to furnish me with some details, and I shall certainly ensure that the situation is checked out.
      Although the Bill would have provided for certain premises to be exempt from licensing control on the authority of a Cabinet Minister on grounds of national security, in the current climate that would have placed a considerable burden on the armed forces in identifying and exempting a very large number of individual premises.
      I commend the amendment to the House.
      Mr. Moss: The Opposition concur with much of what the Minister has said, and acknowledge that the armed forces should have exceptional provisions. The Government amendments seem to achieve that. However, I have a couple of questions for the Minister. Amendment No. 91 speaks of temporary arrangements or premises. Does that cover the armed forces on manoeuvre and in encampment? Does it cover the Territorial Army, which does not occupy its premises frequently and for prolonged intervals? Will the Minister elaborate and confirm that the amendments cover all those eventualities?
      Dr. Howells: I am certainly happy to confirm that the amendments would cover those situations and eventualities.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: Will the Minister reflect on whether it is entirely appropriate that such premises should be exempt? Of course I accept that, if they are being used by the armed forces for purposes connected with the defence of the realm, it is understandable that they should be exempt. I am not sure how far down the line that should apply, however, such as in relation to the territorial forces or an Army cadet hut. I am glad to see the Minister shake his head on the latter point Territorial Army premises, including camps, sites for camps, shooting ranges and the like appear to be covered by the exemption. Will he confirm that that is the case?
      Dr. Howells: I would appreciate some detailed information on the sort of sites that the hon. Gentleman has in mind. I can confirm that we shall not be making
      118
      exemptions for cadet huts, or, I would think, for some of the sites where there are recruiting centres for young people and so on. None the less, if he has got somewhere in mind, I shall certainly try to check out the situation, as I will the issue raised by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) concerning a theatre.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 17

      APPLICATION FOR PREMISES LICENCE
      Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 38, in page 10, line 38, after 'premises', insert '(existing or proposed)'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 42, in clause 28, page 16, line 34, at end insert—
      '() An application under this section may also be accompanied by an operating schedule as defined in section 18(4) in respect of the premises licence for which application is to be made in due course, save that in the case of premises where the relevant licensable activities are to include the supply of alcohol there shall be no requirement when making application for a provisional statement to supply information concerning the proposed designated premises supervisor.'.
      No. 43, in page 16, line 37, after second 'completed', insert
      'prior to the coming into force of any new premises licence that may be granted'.
      No. 44, in page 16, line 39, at end insert—
      'or any modified schedule that may subsequently have been approved by the relevant licensing authority under this provision.'.
      No. 45, in clause 30, page 18, line 3, at end insert—
      '() A provisional statement issued under this section shall have effect for three years from the date of issue.
      () (a) A person may at any time apply to the relevant licensing authority to modify the schedule of works or the provisional statement.
      (b) The Secretary of State may make regulations concerning the making of applications under this subsection and the circumstances in which they shall be advertised.'.
      No. 164, in clause 31, page 18, line 15, leave out from 'same' to end of line 21 and insert
      'or a similar form as the licence described in the application for a provisional statement, and

      (b) the application for that statement was accompanied by an operating schedule, and

      (c) the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application for that statement or any modified schedule subsequently approved has been or will be satisfactorily completed prior to the coming into force of such premises licence as may be granted,

      representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purposes of section 18(6)(d) save for representations made under section 18(6)(c).
      () Where—

      (a) the application for the premises licence is an application for a licence in the same or a similar form as the licence described in the application for the provisional statement, and

      119

      (b) the application for that statement was not accompanied by an operating schedule, and

      (c) the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application for that statement or any modified schedule subsequently approved has been or will be satisfactorily completed prior to the coming into force of such premises licence as may be granted,

      representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purpose of section 18(6)(d) if subsection (4) applies.'.
      No. 1, in clause 41, page 24, line 5, leave out subsection (5).
      No. 2, in page 24, line 7, leave out subsection (6).
      No. 3, in page 24, line 11, leave out subsection (7).
      No. 145, in page 32, line 18 [Clause 54], leave out 'Regulations' and insert 'The relevant licensing authority'.
      No. 146, in page 32, line 22, leave out 'Regulations' and insert 'The relevant licensing authority'.
      No. 147, in page 32, line 22, leave out 'the relevant licensing authority' and insert 'it'.
      No. 148, in page 32, leave out line 24 and insert
      'The relevant licensing authority shall prescribe—'.
      No. 149, in page 32, line 28, at end insert—
      '(5) Different amounts may be prescribed for different cases or classes of case.'.
      Mr. Moss: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 38, 42 to 45, 164 and 1 to 3, which were tabled in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban).
      The amendments relate to the clauses dealing with provisional statements and provisional licences, as they may be called.
      9.15 pm
      Amendment No. 38 relates to clause 17, which is well ahead of the main clauses on provisional statements. It is probably the key amendment. The Government responded at quite a late stage to the representations that were made to them about provisional statements, indicating that they believed that the assurances sought by the trade and the industry were covered by the Bill as drafted.
      However, I have received at least 20 letters and approaches from a range of people in the business, including architects, designers, those in the licensed trade itself and those in the construction industry who are heavily involved in the construction of licensed premises, all of whom feel, even at this late stage, that the Government have not clarified the issue to their satisfaction. Amendment No. 38 would clarify their understanding of whether their applications could be either for existing or proposed developments, because all the relevant clauses after clause 17, which refers to applications for premises licenses, would cover applications for proposed developments, not just existing premises. The other amendments relate to clauses 28, 30, 31 and 41.
      120
      When this part of the Bill was debated in the other place, the Government spokesman, Lord McIntosh, made some rather encouraging comments, as a result of which the Opposition withdrew their amendments and did not press them to a Division. Lord McIntosh's assurances were clear cut. He said:
      "We need to examine the implications and talk to people involved in the industry and stakeholders before we reach a final decision but I am happy to take the matter away and consider it."
      He went on to say:
      "I cannot promise to return with the amendment at Third Reading, or that an amendment on the face of the Bill will be necessary. However, we are certainly sympathetic to the objective behind the amendments."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 27 February 2003; Vol. 645, c. 449.]
      What has happened following those assurances? First, the Department appears to have undertaken no consultation of any kind with the industry. No one had any idea what the Government would propose in Committee. In fact, we never reached the relevant clauses and amendments because the guillotine came down and we lost a whole raft of amendments on a part of the Bill that is important to the people whom I described. This is our first opportunity to debate amendments to an important part of the Bill.
      The Minister courteously and kindly wrote to me after the fall of the guillotine in Committee. In his long letter he precluded any amendment, and at that point no consultation had been carried out. Representatives of the industry belatedly got to discuss those matters with officials at the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. They were asked to draft amendments, but given no guidance about what would be acceptable. How naïve could they be? The Minister and the Department were not likely to point the industry in the right direction. The Government should have tabled amendments. I hope that they will do that at some stage, because only they know what is acceptable to them. That was the position a week or so ago.
      There is no formal way in which to reintroduce such a crucial issue into the debate in another place. The Minister may know better than me, but since the matter was not debated at length and voted on and no amendments were accepted there, I do not think that it can easily be reconsidered on Thursday when the Bill reverts to the other place. The Government, in the person of Lord McIntosh, undertook a duty to set out their reasoning and explain why they believe that no amendment is necessary and that the balance has been properly, fairly and adequately struck between the needs of the industry and those of residents in the vicinity of the proposed development.
      Current legislation allows a company to obtain a provisional licence for a new development from the magistrates court. Provided that all the works are completed in accordance with the relevant plans and permissions, the premises may automatically open on the completion of the development. Clause 31(3) allows a so-called "relevant person", who is defined elsewhere in the Bill, to raise objections to the opening of licensed premises after construction, even if no objections were raised at the time of the operator's application for a provisional statement. It appears that objections can be made when an individual can show that he or she could not have raised an objection at the time of the original provisional statement or had a good reason for failing to do that.

      121
      Objections can also be raised when a "material change" has occurred in the circumstances that relate either to the premises or
      "the area in the vicinity of those premises".
      How on earth can an applicant, who will invest a lot of money, be sure that on completion of the premises there will not be a material change in the environment or the vicinity—for example, the construction of some new houses or a block of flats? How will the residents in the new houses view the application for the premises licence? If they table reasonable objections that are subsequently carried, the project could be placed in serious jeopardy.
      I have some examples that I would like to share with the House. Over the last five years, company No. 1—I do not wish to mention any names—has made approximately 20 applications for new licences. I shall not say precisely what kind of licences they were, but they certainly required a licence to sell alcohol associated with the mainstream activity involved. Those new licences resulted in an investment of more than £55 million. That figure does not include seven further projects that are currently in development, or the investment required for major redevelopment projects that do not require licensing applications. In terms of employment levels, each of the new premises will generate between 70 and 80 jobs. This is an example involving one particular company, in whose opinion a relocation would create a further 30 jobs.
      Company No. 2 has invested £70 million in new projects over the last three years, and intends to invest a further £30 million per annum over the next three years. This company employs about 400 external people annually—professionals, builders, architects, designers and so on—and directly creates 500 new jobs each year. I have been told by the industry that if we were to multiply those figures by about 50, that would account for all the companies in this particular business that are applying for licences and constructing licensed premises of one kind or another on an annual basis. Multiplying £30 million a year by 50 would give the huge total of £ 1.5 billion a year in the construction industry and associated professions and trades, just in this one area of creating new licensed premises.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: My experience is that once a licensee or developer has been granted a provisional licence, the time that elapses between then and the development taking place and the premises opening is quite short. Obviously, the people who have made the investment want to get the place open as soon as possible. If there were great changes in circumstances or in the way in which an establishment was operated, surely it would be right that local people should have a say in the matter. Even if the decision were overturned at a subsequent hearing, those involved would still have the right to appeal to a magistrate, to argue the case that the decision was unfair.
      Mr. Moss: I can tell that the hon. Gentleman has not been anywhere near business, because what he has just said is nonsense. Nobody invests millions of pounds without certainty. The hon. Gentleman has just confirmed that there would be no certainty. He may well say that such premises go up quite quickly. I hope that they do, as that would negate some of the problems that
      122
      the Bill, as it is currently written, seems likely to bring about. If, however, the construction period lasted for 18 months—a big project could take that long—there could well be changes in the environment in the vicinity during that time. According to the Bill, people moving into the area who had not objected initially—because they were not there and did not know about the project—will still have the right to raise objections under clause 31.
      We are not just talking about cash here, or about companies with resources from their profits to reinvest. We are also talking about banks being involved in substantial lending. I would submit that no bank is going to take on a project without the certainty of knowing that once the application for a provisional licence has gone through the normal procedures and been granted, it is inviolate, as it is at the moment.
      The industry is saying that it wants not only assurances from the Government that it will be all right on the night, but that it needs words in the Bill that make it absolutely clear cut and certain that what it is doing will come right in the end. The last thing a business wants is to incur extremely expensive legal bills in fighting its way through the courts because some local authority has given it a hard time over clause 31. The way in which the clause is written would probably deliver such a problem in some circumstances.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Hoban: My hon. Friend has raised the point about the period over which those provisional licences can be in place. The shopping centre that is being built in my constituency has retail and leisure facilities, and one of the anchor tenants of that mixed-use development is a pub. It has taken two or three years to get to this stage, when the first sod is being cut. Clearly, that anchor tenant would want much more certainty than the Bill appears to give. Would my hon. Friend's amendment tackle that issue?
      Mr. Moss: Yes it would. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving us that example, because that exactly illustrates what will happen if we do not amend the Bill.
      Things are even worse than I have said, as it is not only changing circumstances that can give rise to a late objection. According to the explanatory notes, somebody who happens to live in the area, but who was in hospital at the time of the application, would have "reasonable excuse" under clause 31(3)(a). Obviously being in hospital would be a reasonable excuse, as the person could not be there at the time to make the objection. That opens a Pandora's box whereby people can leap up at one remove or at the last minute to object to such developments.
      The words "reasonable excuse" are still in the Bill, despite our attempts to get them removed and despite the attempts of the other place, although the relevant amendments were not pushed to a vote. The definition of "reasonable excuse" leaves a lot to be desired and, of course, it is an entirely new concept. There is nothing akin to it in the licensing laws.
      Mr. Sanders: Or in planning.
      Mr. Moss: From a sedentary position, the hon. Gentleman refers to planning. I do not want to go into

      123
      planning in particular, but he is right. The two applications—one for the provisional statement or licence and one to the planners for the building itself—would go hand in hand.
      Mr. Sanders: There is an interesting confusion here, as the hon. Gentleman says. Two applications would go through to different parts of the council, but residents would have more rights in one area than in another.
      Mr. Moss: I am not sure that that is strictly true.
      Mr. Sanders: Not if they were in hospital.
      Mr. Moss: I am sorry but I did not quite catch the drift of the hon. Gentleman's thinking. Yes, if people were in hospital they could not object to either, but of course they would have no reasonable excuse for opposing a planning application. I am with him, and I beg his pardon for going off on slightly the wrong tack.
      In addition, there does not appear to be a procedure that would allow any existing provisional licences obtained, say, during a transitional period, to be automatically converted to provisional statements. The proposals provide that the new licensing authority can have regard to an existing provisional licence, but it will not be automatically obliged to convert such a licence. That, too, will create significant risk and uncertainty for all those companies, as a development may be completed with the risk of losing the benefit of that original licence.
      Amendment No. 38 proposes a simple change in the wording of clause 17, which would probably sort out all the problems. Failing that, there are amendments Nos. 42 to 45 and 164. Under amendment No. 164, if the application for a provisional statement was accompanied by an operating schedule and the work described in the schedule of works accompanying the application has been satisfactorily completed,
      "representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purposes of section 18 (6)(d)".
      What the trade is telling us, and what I am now telling the Minister, is that if the Minister cannot live with amendment No. 38, amendment No. 164 would be a way of saying to businesses that are investing millions that if they provide operating schedules, the subsequent provisions relating to objections and reasonable excuses should fall by the wayside. Those in the industry would know that if they went through the required hoops they would achieve what they wanted.
      If there is no operating schedule—if a company has not gone into enough detail to convince the licensing authority that it has a clear idea of how it will operate once the building is up and running—
      "representations made by any person in respect of the application for the premises licence are excluded representations for the purpose of section 18 (6)(d) if "
      —this is the key part—
      "subsection (4) applies."
      124
      There are two separate approaches. One involves the operating schedule, and the provision of all the details of the club or pub's activities, opening hours and so forth, so that the local authority can go through all the necessary stages once the application has been received, as it would in the case of an application for an existing premises licence, and the company can be certain of its position fairly soon. Amendment No. 45 takes a different approach. It asks the Government, if they cannot live with some of the other amendments, to impose a time limit. It proposes that a
      "provisional statement issued under this section shall have effect for three years from the date of issue."
      The amendment is really a back-stop. The other amendments are much stronger and we prefer them, but as we have got nothing from the Government so far we would be grateful if they accepted this one.
      In fact, I do not think that the Minister will give us anything tonight, for the simple reason that someone else will have to pick up the file later. No doubt he is under strict instructions to yield nothing.
      This issue is going to bounce back and forth. It is a key issue, and it is a tragedy that we did not have time to debate it in Committee. Assurances were given in the other place, by which the industry set great store. It is up to the Minister to answer my questions tonight, and to justify his case. The clauses relating to provisional statements will cause havoc—and I mean havoc—in the trade, according to those involved.
      If, as his officials are saying, clause 17 allows applications for proposed developments and there is no problem, why is there any need for clause 31(3), which allows latecomers the opportunity to object and could jeopardise extremely important investments? I leave the Minister with the thought that much money and many jobs are involved, and that the potential impact on tourism in many parts of the country is great. It would be tragic beyond words if, for the sake of a few words in the Bill, the industry were decimated.
      Mr. Sanders: I shall be brief. The group of amendments includes one or two that add rather than reduce bureaucracy—I support only those that attempt to reduce it. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) was right to talk about the provisions adding to the uncertainty for business, but that does not apply only to business: many public sector projects could be held up or prevented because of the uncertainty and additional risk that may be incurred. Public sector projects tied into external grant funding, either from central Government or Europe, could be at particular risk if protests were made about specific proposals. As a consequence of being turned down, the Government money could not be used in another way and the opportunity for public sector investment could be lost. It is not an issue for private sector business alone.
      I hope that the Government will consider the matter again. I am all in favour of the public having as much say as possible in respect of planning as well as in the provisions before us, but there is a danger of creating a position in which no one will take the risk to do anything for fear of being turned down. The balance is skewed

      125
      against the development of public or private sector facilities. It is possible to have public input without adding additional risk.
      Mr. Andrew Turner: I should like to speak to amendments Nos. 145, 146 and 147, which stand in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), who is not in his place at the moment.
      I am curious about why the Government believe that it is necessary to make regulations to provide for something set out so clearly in the Bill. The amendments would remove from the Government the obligation to make such regulations. If the Minister says in his response that there are different ways of making regulations to make provision for what is set out in clause 54(1)(a) and (b), subsections (2) and (3)(a) and (b) and that Ministers need more time to work out the best way of effecting those provisions, I will be interested to hear it.
      For my part, I believe that the clause is immensely clear, simple and brooks no variance of interpretation from what most of us would conclude from reading the words in the Bill. The amendments simply provide that, instead of regulations requiring applications to be accompanied by a fee and prescribing the level of fee, the local authority may require those applications and prescribe the amount of the fee.
      Instead of regulations requiring the holder of a premises licence to pay the relevant licensing authority an annual fee, the licensing authority itself may require the holder of a premises licence to pay the annual fee.
      The other issue in the amendment is the size of the fee, which may vary hugely from place to place. Local authorities are concerned that the fee set may be inadequate to meet their reasonable costs in licensing and enforcing the regulations made under the Bill. The Government have said that they wish to prescribe a scale of fees, and it is likely—perhaps the Minister will clarify the point in reply—that that scale of fees will make it difficult to distinguish between different authorities and the costs associated with the work that they are doing. A licensing authority that spends a great deal of money advising applicants in advance of the licences about conditions that may be acceptable, and assists them in drawing up the statements that must accompany licences, will find it easier to deal with licence applications once they are lodged. However, a local authority that does not do that will find licence applications more difficult to deal with. Similarly, a local authority that does not spend much on enforcement will be able to make a profit from the fees prescribed by the Government, but it may not be providing a very effective service. However, a local authority that spends much time and energy on enforcement will find it necessary to charge a higher fee. I hope that the Minister will provide some clarification about the level and detail of the fees, and the extent to which they may vary from place to place.
      My second point was addressed by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and the hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders),
      126
      and I wish to reinforce it. The comparison has been drawn—and it is fair—between the rights of someone who opposes a licensing application following a provisional statement and someone who is in hospital at the time that a planning application is made. There is no provision in planning law for someone to revisit an application after construction of a premises and say, "Hang on, I was in hospital at the time of the application and I would not have agreed to the premises being provided for the purposes of a pub. Instead, I would like you to arrange them to be used for the purposes of a nursing home." That is not allowed in planning law, so why should it be allowed in licensing law? Why should someone who has been in hospital be able to say, "Well, you may have invested £1 million or £2 million in building a night club, or a pub or a cinema, but I do not feel that it is appropriate for the premises to be used for those purposes, despite the fact that you made it clear all along that that was your intention."?
      9.45 pm
      Mr. Kevan Jones: The hon. Gentleman's example is rather frivolous and stupid, like many of the other examples that he gave in Committee and earlier tonight. If a provisional licence is granted by the licensing authority, the reasons for changing it would have to be fundamental, not the simple absence of the person from the first hearing. If the licensing authority overturned a provisional licence for frivolous reasons, the applicant would be able to take the issue to the magistrates, who would reverse the decision.
      Mr. Turner: I accept that, but I am trying to understand exactly why it is necessary to have a two-stage procedure at all, without the clarity and guarantees that someone would need before undertaking an important investment. As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire suggested, people would not be willing to undertake such investments without reasonable certainty that the investment would be viable.
      One of the Bill's purposes is to encourage investment in the entertainment industry.
      Mr. Jones: Is it not the case that the only occasion on which a licensing authority might revoke a provisional licence is when there are major changes in, for example, a development? Surely we should welcome that requirement. If a developer changes a proposal, local people should have a say.
      Mr. Turner: Of course that is justified if there is a major change in what the hon. Gentleman and I have fallen into the trap of calling a provisional licence. The problem, uncertainty and fear for most developers is that the provisional statement will not be followed up by confirmation of a licence in broadly the same terms.
      Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman should tell us what the difference is between that and the present situation. For example, if magistrates give a provisional licence and there are major changes, people can object when it returns for a full hearing at the magistrates court.
      Mr. Turner: As I hoped I had pointed out in answering the previous intervention, where there are major changes, there should be a second bite at the cherry. Essentially, a new or different licence would be being asked for. People who undertake major changes in the course of construction do so at their own risk, as do people who depart from planning permissions in the course of construction. They have to ask either for an amended planning permission or a new one. I accept all that.
      The difficulty will arise when people construct premises broadly in line with the provisional statement only to find that there is a danger that the full licence will not be granted.
      Mr. Jones: If a developer obtains a provisional statement for his licence and does exactly what he said he would do, the chances of any licensing authority overturning him would be very remote. If an authority did, the case would be thrown out when it went to a magistrates court.
      Mr. Turner: The simple answer is that I do not know whether the chances of the statement being overturned are remote, and I certainly do not know whether such a decision would be overturned in a magistrates court. It has been known for control of a local authority to change in the course of construction of a major investment project. The representatives of the ward in which the project is being constructed may change. There is every possibility of a change being made between the provisional statement and the granting of the full licence. As to whether that is just, and as to whether the magistrates would throw a case out, I have no way of telling. What I do know is that anyone who intends to invest a large sum of money in a major project wants some certainty of achieving what the investment is intended to achieve. That certainty is not clear in the procedure set out in the Bill.
      If the Minister intends to say, as the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) has implied, that a local authority would be unable to issue a licence in the terms of the provisional statement and that the magistrates would, or would be likely to, throw out a decision by a local authority not to issue such a licence in the terms of the original statement, I shall be likely to accept what he says
      Mr. Jones: If an imaginary person has been in hospital and is the only person who comes forward to object to the provisional statement, and if the developer has done exactly what he or she said they would do, the idea of a licensing authority overturning the developer will be remote. If the case then went to a magistrates court, it would surely be very unlikely that there would be grounds for overturning the statement. Is that not the case at present with magistrates' provisional licences?
      Mr. Turner: I cannot say what the position is now, or that it is as the hon. Gentleman has asserted, although I have no reason to argue with him.
      128
      However, the rest of the hon. Gentleman's intervention was exactly the same as his previous intervention, so my answer is exactly the same. If, when the Minister replies to the debate, he tells us that there is no prospect of a local authority being able to refuse to issue a licence in the terms of the provisional statement and that, if it did so, the court would be extremely likely to throw out the decision, it will make me much happier than hearing it from the hon. Member for North Durham, expert though he must be by virtue of his former position in Newcastle.
      Dr. Howells: This is a large group of amendments dealing with various aspects of premises licences, provisional statements and fees. I shall do my best to cover that extensive ground.
      On provisional statements, the amendments address two matters, which the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) articulated well: the anxiety that an application for a premises licence could not be made in advance of a building being constructed, or of its imminent construction; and the desire to give developers greater confidence that their investment in any new development will be secure, by restricting the opportunity to make representations on an application for a premises licence.
      The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire made a lot of sweeping statements about the fact that we had not listened to industry. In fact, the Department has held extensive consultations with the British Beer and Pub Association at official level. I, too, have met BBPA representatives to discuss their proposals since we gave undertakings to hold further consultations—although I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is listening.
      On amendment No. 38, nothing in the Bill prevents an application for a premises licence from being made in advance of a building being constructed or extended. The amendment would add the words "existing or proposed" to the description of the premises for which a plan must be provided with an application for a premises licence. The fact that under clause 17 a plan of the premises must accompany the application for a premises licence does not mean that the premises—a building—must currently exist. If the plan describes proposed premises, an application may be considered and, when granted, the premises licence could be given a future start date. It is not, therefore, necessary to state "existing or proposed" in the Bill.
      Clause 28 provides that where premises are being, or are about to be, constructed, extended or altered for use for licensable activities, a person interested in the premises may apply to the licensing authority for a provisional statement. Where that person is an individual he or she must be 18 or over. A provisional statement is a statement issued under clause 30 and provides those engaged in, or about to be engaged in, construction or development work at premises to be used for licensable activities with a certain degree of assurance about their potential trading conditions. As the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire said, that is where we enter difficult territory, because we are talking about balance. The hon. Member for Torbay (Mr. Sanders) also recognised that fact.

      129
      The matter is important because, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire told us, millions of pounds are involved. The hon. Member for Torbay rightly drew our attention to the fact that such money could come from public funds as well as from private investment. Developers or property owners who wanted to construct, alter or extend premises might be reluctant to invest their money if they had no degree of assurance that the premises could be used to carry out the intended business.
      An application for a provisional statement must be accompanied by a schedule of works, which must include a statement of the particulars of the premises and the licensable activities for which the premises are to be used. It must also include plans of the work being carried out and such other information as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State.
      Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, in respect of clause 28, and amendment no. 45, in respect of clause 30, are at the heart of the revised procedures proposed by the businesses engaged in such developments. Before I explore the detail, I shall make some general points.
      If a developer knows precisely what licensable activities the development will be used for, what hours it will be open and who will operate it, it may be entirely possible for him to seek a premises licence. He would merely indicate that he did not want the licence to come into effect until a later date. Nothing in the Bill will prevent that, so provisional statements are relevant when there is a lack of certainty about precisely what the new premises will be used for ultimately and, for example, the hours during which activities will take place on the premises.
      10 pm
      We want businesses to have as much certainty as possible, so that their investments are as secure as possible, as early as possible, but the procedures must include a proper balance between the needs of the property developer and the needs and rights of the local community. Local residents have a right to have their voices heard and to have decisions made in the overall public interest. So in examining this group of amendments, it is important that the House consider that balance at all times.
      Let us remember that the justices have to declare a provisional licence final when the work has been completed, but they can, for example, examine the case afresh to decide whether the licence holder is a fit and proper person to hold a full justices' licence. So there is no absolute certainty under current licensing laws, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) have said.
      Even where a representation was made by those with a reasonable excuse—perhaps they are new to an area or they have been in hospital—that would not necessarily lead to the premises licence application being rejected, as my hon. Friend reminded us. A hearing would have to be held and representations taken into account in the context of the licensing objectives.
      Under amendment No. 42, an applicant could submit an operating schedule, as defined in clause 17(4), with an application for a provisional statement, save that, if the
      130
      supply of alcohol were involved, he would not have to specify a designated premises supervisor. I have two points to make about that. First, amendment No. 42 is erroneously drafted and refers to clause 18, not clause 17, which would be correct. It is flawed on that basis alone. Secondly, if a developer were capable of preparing an operating schedule that far in advance, he could seek a premises licence, as I have already explained. I hope that the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire will accept that important explanation as a comfort. The developer could specify any personal licence holder as the proposed designated premises supervisor and, where necessary, seek a variation of that name if the proposal changed by the time the building was constructed. So amendment No. 42 is both flawed and unnecessary.
      Amendments Nos. 43 and 44 would change the meaning of the phrase
      "references to work being satisfactorily completed"
      in clause 28, which covers
      "work at the premises being completed in a manner which substantially complies with the schedule of works accompanying the application"
      for a provisional statement. Under those amendments, that would be limited to
      "work being completed prior to the coming into force of any new premises licence that may be granted in a manner which substantially complies with the schedule of works accompanying the application or any modified schedule that may subsequently have been approved by the relevant licensing authority under this provision".
      Those amendments, which have to be read with amendment No. 45, also appear to be flawed.
      Under amendment No. 45, the provision that would permit the schedule of works or the provisional statement to be modified contains no detail about what processes and procedures would apply. The Secretary of State would be free to impose any arrangement, by regulation, that she thought fit. I would not suggest that the industry drafted amendment No. 45. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire drafted and moved it, but he said quite clearly that he seeks to represent an industry that is worried about this part of the Bill. I cannot understand why an industry that purports to seek greater certainty wants to allow the Secretary of State carte blanche to include anything.
      It is abundantly clear that a modification of a provisional statement or schedule of works will go to the heart of procedures. It might, in effect, be a new application, and that could be an attempt to avoid representations that might come from local residents about such modifications. Whatever the intention behind the proposal, however, the truth is that it is far too open ended to include in the Bill, particularly at this late stage.
      Amendment No. 45 would also limit the validity of a provisional statement to three years. Once expired, a new provisional statement would be required, with the full procedures in play again every three years. That will bring the timing into line with proposals in respect of planning permission. The amendment, however, cannot be considered in isolation. The industry has offered this limitation as part of a package that includes limitations on representations that can be made by local residents or responsible authorities, including the police, at the end of the process, when a premises licence is being sought.

      131
      We have no strong objection to the three-year limitation per se, although, in isolation, we cannot see the rationale behind seeking to time-limit its validity. We object, however, to the whole package that is being proposed. The Opposition seem to have what I consider to be a schizophrenic approach to a key issue such as cumulative effect. I have no doubt that in few moments we will hear the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) talk about cumulative effect.
      What would be the effect if, at the end of a long period during which a building has not been completed and has not become operational, serious changes had taken place in a vicinity? The hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster gave some vivid examples that have stayed in my mind ever since: he pointed out that in a two or three-year period a street or an area of a city can change quickly and remarkably. For example, a large increase in vertical drinking establishments, as we came to call them in Committee, could take place. The responsible authorities, including the police or a department of the local authority, might say, "Hang on, we want to talk about this." It might pose a serious problem to law and order in the area, or to other businesses that discover that their clientele do not want to come into a city centre. As happens in Manchester on a Friday or Saturday night, there may be 150,000 mainly young people having a good time but perhaps creating an atmosphere that some people find threatening. We heard in Committee that restaurateurs, for example, are very worried about those cumulative effects and are considering moving away from city centres. The Opposition cannot have it both ways: if they are to argue that case, they must also admit that things can and do change regularly.
      We want to give developers as much certainty as we can, but to understand the package we need to look at amendment No. 164, which was the last blast of the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, who, in effect, said, "If you can't accept anything else, accept this." Well, I cannot accept amendment No. 164 either, and I shall explain why. It replaces a large part of clause 31, under which representations about applications for premises licences when a provisional statement has been issued are excluded if the application for the provisional statement and the work described in the schedule of works has been satisfactorily completed. For representations to be excluded, the relevant person must have been able to make the same or substantially the same representations when the provisional statement was applied for and must have failed to do so without reasonable excuse. There must also have been no material change in the circumstances relating to the premises or the vicinity of the premises since the statement was issued
      Amendment No. 164 would limit representations that can be made when a premises licence is sought in respect of premises for which a provisional statement has been made. It assumes that several other amendments in this group have been accepted.
      It would exclude representations other than those in respect of the premises supervisor if applications were made in similar or the same terms as the original application for the statement, if that statement was accompanied by an operating schedule and the work
      132
      described in the schedule of works, or any modification of that schedule, had been or would be satisfactorily completed.
      Furthermore, if applications were made in similar or the same terms as the original application for the statement and that statement was not accompanied by an operating schedule but the work described in the schedule of works or any modification of that schedule had been or would be satisfactorily completed, all representations would be excluded if subsection (4) applied, meaning that the person would have failed to make representations without reasonable excuse and there would have been no material changes in circumstances relating to the premises or the vicinity of the premises.
      The amendments are built on the flawed assumption that a premises licence could not be obtained in advance of premises being constructed. The drafting of amendment No. 42 is technically flawed and the other amendments, which are the heart of the proposals, are built on that error. None of them can therefore be accepted.
      I understand fully why the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire tabled the amendments. I was as sorry as him that we did not have the opportunity to debate similar amendments in Committee. I remember going through amendments in Committee faster than I ever had before in an attempt to reach such amendments.
      I hope that my explanation demonstrates that even if the errors were corrected, the changes would not be necessary to give developers more confidence. They would upset the careful balance that the Bill will establish between the needs of developers and the rights of local residents, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw the amendment.
      We have spent a lot of time on these amendments, but I do not want to leave the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) without an answer. As he knows and as I tried to explain in Committee, we have been careful to ensure that local authorities will be as responsible as possible. The vast majority of local authorities will understand that the streamlined new procedure will allow them to cut many existing costs. We do not want to allow a rogue local authority—I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman used that term—to do such a thing as imposing prohibitive licensing fees that would stymie both development and live music and other forms of cultural expression in licensed premises. Fees will be set centrally for that reason and that reason alone, but we shall examine carefully such issues as turnover and geography to ensure that they are set fairly. We shall watch that situation carefully.
      Valerie Davey: Can my hon. Friend tell me the extent of the range that the Government might have in mind? There is real worry that if we are not careful, extended-hours costs—policing and cleaning—will be borne by the taxpayer rather than those who use and benefit from the extended hours.
      Dr. Howells: I make it clear to my hon. Friend that none of those costs will form part of the fees that we will charge. People have the right to have a good time in pubs whether they drink at 2 am or 10 pm. One would

      133
      think that the Bill had nothing to do with extending licensing hours and freeing up the way in which we enjoy ourselves and participate in licensable activities, because we have not got round to discussing that at all. The Bill is deregulatory and liberating. We shall have to address costs that might arise as part of a consideration of local government funding in general. I shall not lumber the licensed industry with those costs.
      Mr. Mike Hancock rose—
      Dr. Howells: I love the way the Liberals always come up with something right at the end. I give way to the hon. Gentleman because he was here earlier.
      Mr. Hancock: I am somewhat confused about the line that the Minister is taking. It seems that it is okay for licensees to be exempt from meeting the costs, but that local authorities, which are already hard pressed for cash, will have to pick up those extra costs. That is the very point that the hon. Member for Bristol. West (Valerie Davey) made.
      10.15 pm
      Dr. Howells: Yes, and it is the very thing that we do not deal with in the Bill. I do not know how familiar the hon. Gentleman is with the legislation. He has had plenty of time to study it and to listen to and participate in the debates, although I am not aware that he has taken part up until now. We are dealing with licensable activities. We are not dealing with a more general issue of local government funding or the possible direct consequences for local government funding of activities that might occur away from licensed premises. I would be willing to have that debate another time. That is also my response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey).
      We are dealing with something that is specific to an industry and it concerns licensable activities. There are many reasons for litter on the street and loutish behaviour. Some of them are to do with what goes on inside pubs, but many of them are not. The Bill tries to make a significant change by blowing away the clouds of criminality that have surrounded the issue of alcohol licensing in this country for far too long.
      Mr. Moss: The Minister made a reasonable fist of throwing out our amendments. I admit that there was a drafting error. However, we used legal counsel to table some of them, so we have not had incompetents assisting us.
      One concern remains in my mind: why are the Government changing the current rules and regulations relating to provisional licences? What has prompted them to go down that road? It is a change. The Minister says that it is not, but the Bill enables people with reasonable excuses to make late-stage objections. Has the Minister or his Department received a raft of objections as a result of the provisional licences? There is no evidence of that. Those in the industry think that the present system works extremely well and they see no reason to change it.
      The Minister went on at length about a degree of balance. We would support that, but how can there be a balance when individuals can jeopardise at a late stage
      134
      millions of pounds of investment that has already been committed? He said that justices can examine cases afresh, but that can happen only when the conditions set down at the outset have not been fulfilled. That would provide real grounds on which to revisit licences, but there is no near certainty about any such matters. The Minister also talked about having another look at the fit-and-proper-person definition. That may be relevant when someone is nominated for a premises licence, but that can be altered and does not necessarily jeopardise the whole investment.
      We would be happy to give ground on some amendments, but we want to press amendment No. 38 to a Division. The industry believes that the current wording does not give it the assurance that it seeks on applications. The Minister has not convinced us on that.
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 152, Noes 297.

      Division No. 235]

      [10:19 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      George, Andrew (St. Ives)

      Allan, Richard

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

      Amess, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Goodman, Paul

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Bacon, Richard

      Grayling, Chris

      Barker, Gregory

      Gummer, rh John

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Hammond, Philip

      Barrett, John

      Hancock, Mike

      Bellingham, Henry

      Harvey, Nick

      Bercow, John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Blunt, Crispin

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Boswell, Tim

      Heald, Oliver

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Heath, David

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Brady, Graham

      Hendry, Charles

      Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Brazier, Julian

      Holmes, Paul

      Breed, Colin

      Horam, John (Orpington)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Howard, rh Michael

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

      Burnett, John

      Hunter, Andrew

      Burns, Simon

      Jack, rh Michael

      Burt, Alistair

      Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

      Butterfill, John

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Chidgey, David

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Chope, Christopher

      Lamb, Norman

      Collins, Tim

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Cotter, Brian

      Leigh, Edward

      Cran, James (Beverley)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Curry, rh David

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Loughton, Tim

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Dodds, Nigel

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Doughty, Sue

      Maclean, rh David

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Duncan Smith, rh Iain

      Malins, Humfrey

      Evans, Nigel

      Maples, John

      Fabricant, Michael

      Maude, rh Francis

      Fallon, Michael

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Flook, Adrian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Moss, Malcolm

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      135

      Norman, Archie

      Steen, Anthony

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Streeter, Gary

      Öpik, Lembit

      Stunell, Andrew

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Syms, Robert

      Page, Richard

      Taylor, Ian (Esher)

      Paice, James

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Paterson, Owen

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Pickles, Eric

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Tyler Paul (N Cornwall)

      Randall, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Redwood, rh John

      Viggers, Peter

      Rendel, David

      Walter, Robert

      Robathan, Andrew

      Waterson, Nigel

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Whittingdale, John

      Ruffley, David

      Wiggin, Bill

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Willets David

      Sanders, Adrian

      Williams Roger (Brecon)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Willis, Phil

      Selous, Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Young, rh Sir George

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Spring, Richard

      Mr. Mark Hoban and

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Alexander, Douglas

      Caton, Martin

      Allen, Graham

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

      Challen, Colin

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Chaytor, David

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clapham, Michael

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Austin, John

      Banks, Tony

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Clelland, David

      Battle, John

      Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Coaker, Vernon

      Beard, Nigel

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cohen, Harry

      Bell, Stuart

      Coleman, Iain

      Benn, Hilary

      Connarty, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

      Berry, Roger

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Best, Harold

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Betts, Clive

      Corston, Jean

      Blackman, Liz

      Cousins, Jim

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cranston, Ross

      Blizzard, Bob

      Crausby, David

      Borrow, David

      Cruddas, Jon

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cummings, John

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Browne, Desmond

      David, Wayne

      Bryant, Chris

      Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Burden, Richard

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burnham, Andy

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Denham, rh John

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Cairns, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      136

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kemp, Fraser

      Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Edwards, Huw

      Efford, Clive

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lammy, David

      Field, rh Frank (Birkenhead)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Fisher, Mark

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Follett, Barbara

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Gapes, Mike (IlfordS)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gardiner, Barry

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McDonnell, John

      Gilroy, Linda

      MacDougall, John

      Godsiff, Roger

      McFall, John

      Goggins, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      McKechin, Ann

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      MacShane, Denis

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hanson, David

      McWalter, Tony

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McWilliam, John

      Healey, John

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

      Heppell, John

      Martlew, Eric

      Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

      Merron, Gillian

      Heyes, David

      Michael, rh Alun

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Miliband, David

      Hinchliffe, David

      Miller, Andrew

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Mole, Chris

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Morley, Elliot

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Mountford, Kali

      Mudie, George

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Mullin, Chris

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Hara, Edward

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

      Organ, Diana

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Owen, Albert

      Jamieson, David

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jenkins, Brian

      Perham, Linda

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Picking, Anne

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      137

      Prescott, rh John

      Stewart, lan (Eccles)

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Purnell, James

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rammell, Bill

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Trickett, Jon

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

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Rooney, Terry

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Ruane, Chris

      Ward, Claire

      Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Watts, David

      Savidge, Malcolm

      White, Brian

      Sawford, Phil

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Singh, Marsha

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Woolas, Phil

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Southworth, Helen

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Spellar, rh John

      Wyatt, Derek

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Stevenson, George

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mr. Nick Ainger and

      Joan Ryan

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Clause 18

      DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR PREMISES LICENCE
      Dr. Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 66, in page 11, line 40, after '19' insert
      ', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
      Government amendments Nos. 67, 68, 71 to 75, 90, 100, 101, 103 and 104.
      Government new clause 2—Mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films.
      Government new clause 3—Mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films.
      Dr. Howells: The amendments introduce a mandatory condition to be included in all premises licences and club premises certificates authorising the exhibition of films, for the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with the recommendations given to films either by the body designated under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act
      138
      1984—the British Board of Film Classification is the only body that has been so designated—or by the licensing authority itself.
      Allowing the licensing authority to recommend restrictions on the admittance of children to film screenings would preserve the current, rarely exercised power of local authorities to classify films themselves, including on an individual film basis, which will allow ultimate discretion and ensure that the many excellent film festivals held in this country can continue without each film having to be classified by the film classification body.
      We tabled the amendments in response to discussions with the BBFC, which was concerned that the Bill, and in particular the licensing objective of
      "the protection of children from harm",
      might not allow it to do all it wished in relation to the classification of films. I have been able to give it an assurance that we intend the objective to have the widest possible meaning and to cover moral, psychological and physical harm. However, in response to the board's wishes, I have agreed to reinforce with the amendments the provisions relating to the access of children to films.
      It is important to bear it in mind that the effect of the amendments is not to place the film classification body's recommendations on a statutory footing, but simply to recognise in the Bill the body's expertise, while making it clear that the licensing authorities will continue to be able to impose their own classifications. That preserves the effect of the current position under the Cinemas Act 1985. We will support the amendments with additional references in the statutory guidance to the body's activities.
      I am pleased to commend the amendments as a response to the BBFC's concerns and I hope that the House will support them.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 67, in page 12, line 6, after '19' insert
      ', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.— [Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 34

      DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 33
      Amendment made: No. 68, in page 20, line 15, after '19' insert
      ', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.— [Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 36

      APPLICATION TO VARY LICENCE TO SPECIFY INDIVIDUAL As PREMISES SUPERVISOR
      Dr. Howells: I beg to move amendment No. 69, in page 21, line 11, leave out from 'licence' to end and insert 'may—

      (a) if the licence authorises the supply of alcohol, or

      (b) if he has applied under section 33 to vary the licence so that it authorises such supplies,'.

      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 70, 88, 89, 120, 121, 98, 122 to 131, 99 and 102.
      Dr. Howells: This is a group of minor technical amendments. Government amendments Nos. 69 and 70 are minor amendments perfecting the drafting of the Bill in relation to applications to vary the individual specified in a premises licence as the designated premises supervisor. It is only for premises licences authorising the supply of alcohol that a designated premises supervisor is required, because of the particular issues that arise from the supply and consumption of alcohol and the responsibilities that go with that.
      The centrality to the system of the concept of the designated premises supervisor has been discussed at great length in Committee and in another place, together with a number of modifications that the Government have made to the Bill in response to various representations by the industry and by other bodies. Clause 36 provides that the holder of a premises licence may apply to vary the licence to specify a new premises supervisor.
      Mr. Frank Field: On behalf of the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) and myself—we are, respectively, chairmen of the Historic Chapels Trust and the Churches Conservation Trust—I thank the Government for giving us the undertaking in correspondence that our organisations will be exempt, provided that we fulfil the religious qualification under the Bill. May I also use this opportunity to thank, through the Minister, his staff for the care that they have taken in negotiating those concessions?
      Dr. Howells: I take great pleasure in saying that I will convey my thanks to the staff, who worked very hard on that. My right hon. Friend has done the House a great service in persuading us that we should look again at the issue of historic churches. He will guarantee that many of them remain as great cultural and historical assets for this country.
      Government amendments Nos. 88 and 89 are technical amendments to improve the drafting of clauses 148 to 150 to achieve consistency with similar provisions in the Bill.
      Amendment agreed to.

    Clause 37

      CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH SECTION 36 APPLICATION GIVEN INTERIM EFFECT
      Amendment made: No. 70, in page 21, line 37, at end insert
      'in respect of a premises licence which authorises the supply of alcohol'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 51

      DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
      Amendment made: No. 71, in page 31, line 14, after '19' insert
      [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 71

      DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR CLUB PREMISES CERTIFICATE
      Amendments made: No. 72, in page 41, line 44, leave out 'section 72(2) to (5)' and insert
      'any conditions which must under section 72(2) to (5) or [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] be included in the certificate'.
      No. 73, in page 42, line 12, leave out 'section 72(2) to (5)' and insert
      'any conditions which must under section 72(2) to (5) or [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] be included in the certificate'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 83

      DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION UNDER SECTION 82
      Amendment made: No. 74, in page 47, line 29, leave out from first 'to' to end of line 31 and insert
      'sections 72 and [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] (mandatory conditions relating to supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises and to exhibitions of films)'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 86

      DETERMINATION OF APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
      Amendment made: No. 75, in page 50, line 1, leave out from first 'to' to end of line 3 and insert
      'sections 72 and [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films] (mandatory conditions relating to supply of alcohol for consumption off the premises and to exhibitions of films)'.—[Dr. Howells.]
      It being four hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR DEPUTY SPEAKER, put the Questions necessary to dispose of business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].

    Clause 98

      TEMPORARY EVENT NOTICE
      Amendments made: No. 76, in page 55, line 18, leave out '72' and insert '96'.
      No. 77, in page 55, line 32, leave out '72' and insert '96'.
      No. 78, in page 56, line 8, at end insert—
      '(7A) The Secretary of State may, by order—

      (a) amend subsections (1) and (5)(b) so as to substitute any period for the period for the time being specified there;

      (b) amend subsection (5)(d) so as to substitute any number for the number for the time being specified there.'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 105

      COUNTER NOTICE WHERE PERMITTED LIMITS EXCEEDED
      Amendments made: No. 80, in page 59, line 23, leave out 'or (4)' and insert', (4) or (4A)'.
      No. 81, in page 59, line 35, leave out 'five' and insert '12'.
      No. 82, in page 59, leave out lines 37 and 38 and insert—
      '(a) are in respect of the same premises as notice A, and'.
      No. 83, in page 59, line 40, at end insert—
      '(4A) This subsection applies if, in any year in which the event period specified in notice A (or any part of it) falls, more than 15 days are days on which one or more of the following fall—

      (a) that event period or any part of it,

      (b) an event period specified in a temporary event notice already given in respect of the same premises as notice A or any part of such a period.'.

      No. 84, in page 60, line 3, leave out 'or (4)' and insert', (4) or (4A)'.
      No. 85, in page 60, line 20, at end insert—
      '(10A) The Secretary of State may, by order, amend subsection (2)(b), (3)(b), (4) or (4A) so as to substitute any number for the number for the time being specified there.'.
      No. 86, in page 60, line 21, at end insert—
      '() a temporary event notice is in respect of the same premises as notice A if it is in respect of the whole or any part of the relevant premises or premises which include the whole or any part of those premises;'.
      No. 87, in page 60, line 22, after 'year;' insert—
      '() "day" means a period of 24 hours beginning at midnight;'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Schedule 4

      PERSONAL LICENCE: RELEVANT OFFENCES
      Amendments made: No. 94, in page 117, line 16, at end insert—
      ' An offence under section 1 of the Trade Descriptions Act 1968 (c.29) (false trade description of goods) in circumstances where the goods in question are or include alcohol.'.
      No. 95, in page 118, line 21, at end insert—
      '() section 107(3) (infringement of copyright by public performance of work etc.);'.
      No. 96, in page 118, line 33, at end insert—
      'An offence under either of the following provisions of the Food Safety Act 1990 (c.16) in circumstances where the food in question is or includes alcohol—

      (a) section 14 (selling food or drink not of the nature, substance or quality demanded);

      (b) section 15 (falsely describing or presenting food or drink).'.

      No. 97, in page 118, line 33, at end insert—
      ' An offence under section 92(1) or (2) of the Trade Marks Act 1994 (c.26) (unauthorised use of trade mark, etc.in relation to goods) in circumstances where the goods in question are or include alcohol.'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 148
      DELIVERING ALCOHOL To CHILDREN
      Amendment made: No. 88, in page 81, line 26, leave out 'sale' and insert 'supply'.—[Dr. Howells.]
    Clause 150

      PROHIBITION OF UNSUPERVISED SALES BY CHILDREN
      Amendment made: No. 89, in page 82, leave out lines 35 to 38 and insert—

      '(i) the holder of a premises licence in respect of the premises,

      142

      (ii) the designated premises supervisor (if any) under such a licence, or

      (iii) any individual aged 18 or over who is authorised for the purposes of this section by such a holder or supervisor;.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 164

      REVIEW OF PREMISES LICENCE FOLLOWING CLOSURE ORDER
      Amendment made: No. 90, in page 90, line 21, after '19' insert
      ', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 170

      ACTIVITIES IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS NOT LICENSABLE
      Amendment made: No. 91, in page 94, line 30, at end insert—
      '() at premises which, at the time when the activity is carried on, are permanently or temporarily occupied for the purposes of the armed forces of the Crown,'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Clause 192

      REGULATIONS AND ORDERS
      Amendments made: No. 92, in page 107, line 12, at end insert—

      '(aa) an order under section 98(7A) (alteration of maximum temporary event period),

      (ab) an order under section 105(10A) (alteration of limit on number of temporary event notices),'.

      No. 93, in page 107, line 22, leave out '(3)(b)' and insert '(3)(aa), (ab), (b)'.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Schedule 6

      MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS
      Amendments made: No. 120, in page 139, line 27, leave out 'to 133' and insert 'and 132'.
      No. 121, in page 139, line 27, at end insert—
      ' In section 133 (miscellaneous provision about new towns), in subsection (1), omit the following definitions—

      (a) "development corporation",

      (b) "the 1964 Act".'.—[Dr. Howells.]

      Mr. Moss: I beg to move amendment No. 61, in page 146, line 8, at end insert—
      'Data Protection Act, 1998 (c. 29)
      () In section 35 of the Data Protection Act 1998 (disclosures required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings etc.),after subsection (1) insert—
      "(1A) Where the constitution, rules, standing orders, Memorandum, Articles of Association or other governing instrument of any club, society, company or other legal person (not being an individual) contains a provision (hereinafter called a "rule provision") framed to comply with any enactment repealed by the Licensing Act 2003, the exemption afforded by subsection (1) shall continue to apply to that rule provision and anything done under it, notwithstanding the repeal of such enactments.".'.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 169, in page 156, line 35 [Schedule 8], at end insert—
      '() if the premises currently operate subject to undertakings which have been given to the licensing justices, a copy of those undertakings,'.
      No. 4, in page 157, line 24 [Schedule 8], leave out from 'that' to 'converting' in line 25.
      No. 138, in page 158, line 8 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
      No. 179, in page 159, line 21 [Schedule 8], at end insert—
      '() the purposes embodied in those undertakings of a permanent nature that relate to the licensing objectives which have been offered by the licensee and which attach to the relevant existing licence,'.
      No. 180, in page 159, line 24 [Schedule 8], after 'the', insert 'permanent undertakings and'.
      No. 170, in page 159, line 25 [Schedule 8], at end insert
      'or
      () those undertakings which have been given to the licensing justice in respect of the relevant existing licence, or licences, which the licensing authority decides are necessary to promote the licensing objectives.'.
      No. 139, in page 160, line 11 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
      No. 47, in page 162, line 13 [Schedule 8], leave out from 'must' to end of line 15 and insert
      'grant a premises licence and the preceding provisions of this Schedule shall have effect as if the application were for conversion of an existing justices' licence'.
      No. 140, in page 164, line 23 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
      No. 141, in page 165, line 33 [Schedule 8], leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.
      10.45 pm
      Mr. Moss: The lead amendment, which is to schedule 6, relates to the Data Protection Act 1998. It is our understanding that the data protection commissioner required treasurers or secretaries of clubs, sporting or otherwise, to cease publication of the names and addresses of applicants for membership from computer details. However, we also understand that schedule 7(3) of the Licensing Act 1964 required publication and that section 35(1) of the Data Protection Act 1998 therefore protects publication. It states:
      "Personal data are exempt from the non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by or under any enactment, by any rule of law or by the order of a court."
      When the 1964 Act is repealed, the requirement for which it provides will no longer apply. Doubtless that means that the protection in section 35 of the 1998 Act will no longer apply. Accordingly, any publication of the applicant's name and address from computer records to comply with a club's constitution will contravene the 1998 Act. What was once legally necessary could become illegal overnight. Club constitutions would have to be altered to take effect on the same day as the repeal. Sadly, most club secretaries will not be surfing the internet for appointed day orders.
      144
      Clubs may decide to simplify their rules when the new law is introduced. If they did that, the exemption would no longer apply because the rule provision would no longer be in force. However, they should not be obliged to make such a change and the amendment would allow choice.
      Mr. Frank Dobson: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 169 and 170, which are in my name and that of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field), and are supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). Our constituencies, like many others, are severely affected, if not afflicted, by noise, loutish behaviour, vandalism and intimidation, often late at night as people enter or leave licensed premises. Although it is rather late for a sitting in the Commons nowadays, it may be an hour or two yet before our constituents have their sleep disturbed by the behaviour that I described.
      Both amendments refer to undertakings that were previously given to magistrates by licensees to obtain or continue an existing licence. Provided that the undertakings have been complied with, they have given the protection from nuisance that local residents currently enjoy. We believe that if such undertakings disappear, problems and a great deal of nuisance are likely to arise for residents who have grown accustomed to some sort of control over licensed premises.
      The amendments would continue the protection. I am told that some Government officials claim that that cannot be done by retaining conditions in the existing licences because, they assert, the undertakings do not have the force of law. However, I have done some checking and I have the Justices' Clerks Society "Good Practice Guide 2002 Edition", which is the most recent edition. From that, it is as plain as a pikestaff that, under the current position, if licensees refuse to continue an undertaking, the magistrates can refuse to grant the licence. The only recourse for the disappointed licensee is to make a new application to the justices.
      That seems to me to be pretty close to having the force of law. Whether that is the case or not, my colleagues and I do not see why the existing undertakings cannot be included as a condition in new licences, and amendment No. 170 seeks to include in a new licence the existing provisions. That would not require the new licensing body to include them as a condition, but it would give it the right to consider the matter and to include them if it saw fit. I really cannot see what is wrong with that proposition.
      Amendment No. 169 can only be described as even more reasonable and unassertive than amendment No. 170, and it should cause the Government—and the licensees, for that matter—less of a problem. All that it would do would be to require that an application to renew an existing licence should specify on the face of the application the existing undertakings, so that the new licensing body could consider whether it wished to dispense with them, vary them or include them as a condition. That seems to us to be a very moderate request, but if it is not granted, or if the Government cannot find some other way of bringing about the possible continuation of some of the existing undertakings at the discretion of the new licensing body, hundreds of neighbourhoods and tens of thousands of

      145
      people all over the country who enjoy some protection will see that protection withdrawn. I cannot believe that that is the Government's intention.
      Nick Harvey: I endorse the points made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and support the amendments to which he spoke, as well as those that stand in my name. The undertakings that have been extracted from licensees by magistrates—particularly in London and other city areas, but in other parts of the country as well—are a vital part of licensing law as it stands. They represent the wisdom and expertise acquired by magistrates in carrying out these tasks over a period of years.
      I simply do not believe that those undertakings cannot be continued into the new regime in the manner described by the right hon. Gentleman. They should constitute part of the first application that the licensee makes under the new regime. I know from what Ministers have said previously that they are sympathetic to that objective, but they seem to have convinced themselves that, for some reason, it cannot be done in the simple form that the right hon. Gentleman suggested. It is vital that it should be done. If it is not, we shall be requiring the local authorities that are going to take over this role to reinvent the wheel. They will have to take a crash course, learning all the experiences of every set of premises that magistrates have gathered over a period of years and wisely written into the agreements that they have made with those premises. It will be difficult enough to handle the transition anyway. The local authorities will be taking on a huge task, cranking themselves up to carry out all these new functions. It would make that task very much easier, and afford far more protection for residents living near licensed premises, if the undertakings that had been built up over time were to transfer to the new regime along with the licence.
      I welcome the fact that the right hon. Gentleman has looked into the technical arguments and suggested to the House that he believes that the undertakings could and should be carried forward. He is absolutely right, and, as he says, if they are not, there are going to be disgruntled residents all over the place who will view the new legislation from the outset as being unable to provide them with the protection, peace of mind and peaceful enjoyment of their homes and properties that they have had in the past.
      That will leave an even bigger challenge for the local authorities that have to struggle to make sense of complicated new legislation. I appeal to Ministers, if on no other basis, to agree to carry those undertakings forward just to give their new legislation and regime as good a start as possible. Otherwise, they will be mired in localised battles and difficulties from the outset in a way that I am sure they do not want.
      Mr. Mark Field: I wish to address the issue of undertakings, if I may, as well as the amendments on transitional arrangements that stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss).
      It might appear curious to many of those watching the debate in the Gallery or on the BBC's Parliament Channel that there is such cross-party agreement, but I
      146
      have worked closely with the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and the hon. Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) as these issues have affected all of us in our part of central London. Indeed, it is fair to say that probably only the three of us know the boundaries of our constituencies. Many police and many constituents would not know when they had crossed from parts of Camden in Covent Garden to Westminster or that in crossing the Marylebone road they had gone from one side of Westminster to another.
      It is important to stress that the amendments on undertakings are not simply a matter of the effect on central London. I am acutely aware of that, although in Committee the Minister often teased me in his pleasant way about how I addressed many comments to the particular and unusual circumstances of the city of Westminster. It is a fact that many of the issues apply to coastal towns across the country. Dare I say it, as he is sitting directly to my right, but my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) will find that they apply to many licensed premises in his constituency? Seaside towns across the country will equally be affected if the undertakings regime is dismantled in the way that the Government envisage.
      There have been difficulties for many of us who served in Committee, particularly those such as me who are of a libertarian bent. I do not necessarily think that there should be strict rules applying to drinking at all hours. If only we lived in a society in which we could rely on individual responsibility, and if only people who are happy drinking at all hours in Soho, Covent Garden or any of our seaside towns on warm, summer days such as this could be trusted to behave in a civilised fashion, we would all like a liberalisation and deregulation of all licensing laws. However, we all know, sadly, that we do not live in such an ideal world and there is therefore a necessity to have some framework in place.
      I have had some fundamental disagreements, which I referred to on Second Reading. If I am lucky enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I may do so again on Third Reading. However, one can understand that there is a need for some regulatory framework. I probably speak for many Members who represent seats with large licensed alcohol and entertainment industries in saying that we have a schizophrenic approach to them in certain respects. We would like much deregulation in certain areas—indeed, many of us spoke on those matters earlier on Report—while we want strict regulation in others.
      In respect of undertakings, I have been impressed by the work done by a number of residents associations in my constituency, in particular the Meard and Dean street residents association, which put forward a detailed paper that the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras alluded to. It is clear that the local Metropolitan police view the undertakings as an important part of any licensing application made by prospective licensees. They are, for want of a better phrase, a gentlemen's agreement—in these politically correct times, I should perhaps say that they are a ladies' and gentlemen's agreement—between the applicant and the licensing justices. They show good will on behalf of the premises that they will be run correctly and responsibly managed.

      147
      11 pm
      It is also said that, in the case of multiple operators, any revocation notices served will be effective. The Metropolitan police in the central London area have objected to new applications for transfer on the ground that the applications in themselves constituted a clear attempt to opt out of revocation proceedings. A revocation notice will be withdrawn only when it is shown that the operators have no further financial or business dealings with the new venture that is being applied for.
      I agree with the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey) that we should be gravely concerned about the fact that if we eliminate the current undertakings regime, we shall lose generations of expertise that have helped to ensure a balance in particular vicinities. It would be sad to lose the long-standing wisdom of magistrates who know and love their areas.
      As I know from my constituency, it is feared in central London that if we start with a blank sheet of paper—a new conditions regime—having got rid of all those undertakings, we shall see more than just a lowering of standards. Anyone out on the streets of Soho or Covent Garden at 3 or 4 am on a Saturday or Sunday morning will probably be horrified by the sheer mass of people there, and the antisocial behaviour that takes place. What some describe as late-night licensing is actually early-hours licensing. As I have said here a number of times, the great majority of people who live in Soho and Covent Garden live there not by choice, but because they are social tenants: 70 to 80 per cent. of housing in those areas is social housing. Such vulnerable people require a strict undertakings regime that reflects the history of their area.
      I hope that the Minister will think seriously about what I have said,. It is not just special pleading for a small part of central London; it applies to much of the country. I fear that our debate has not been as vociferous as it might have been partly because the real implications of what is being proposed have not become apparent to many Members who represent seaside towns. It is only during a handful of weekends at this time of the year that antisocial behaviour becomes—sadly—the norm, and for that reason a blind eye may have been turned to many provisions that undermine protection for the local population.
      The hon. Member for North Devon rightly focused on residents, but we should go a step further. What gives my part of the country its charm—and I am sure that the same applies to all seaside towns—is the existence of long-standing family businesses such as small wine bars, pubs and restaurants that may have been in the hands of families for several generations. In the event of the downward spiral into an entirely deregulated 24-hour city—for want of a better phrase—there is a risk that only the very large operators will step in. At the time of the next economic upturn, selling out will be an extremely attractive proposition for many long-standing family operators, and only the lowest common denominator will be appealed to.
      We central London Members are not appealing to our residential population just on a nimby basis, although it must be said that, come election time, it is the residential rather than the business population that
      148
      votes. We want businesses to thrive. We want smaller family businesses with a genuine stake in the community to survive.
      Let me say something about the transitional arrangements. I gave the Minister chapter and verse on the arrangements that applied in the royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea, where I was a councillor until 12 months ago.
      It was able to brief me. He will be gratified to learn that I have even more statistics to hand from the city of Westminster. They will similarly underline some of the challenges facing Westminster. It is for that relatively straightforward reason that my amendments Nos. 138 to 141 are designed to double the length of the initial transitional period from two to four months.
      It seems evident that government in the broader sense—by which I mean local government as well as central Government—and business need to consider how best to contribute to the costs of the community of late-night entertainment. The night-time economy already puts a major strain on central London's local infrastructure and public services. That is a recurring theme, and I am sure that all Members with constituencies in central London agree that we lack such an infrastructure in respect of a 24-hour public transport system—apart from buses, where great improvements have been made, but not enough to cater for the vast numbers congregating in central London, particularly at weekends.
      Similarly, the police infrastructure is inadequate. Statistics are often bandied around about the number of police available in the west end on an average evening, but it is clear that without enormous investment of resources in that sector we will not secure sufficient cover for the needs of the residential population and those who are out and about in central London during the night. I am not talking only about the alcohol-fuelled violence and loutish behaviour of a small minority, but about the crush caused by the sheer number of people around at that time of the night and early morning.
      In my view—and it conforms to the experience of people who have lived in places such as Soho for many decades—late licensing means that transport, policing and street cleansing services need to be able to respond to the impact created by the thousands of people leaving late-licensed premises. To give some concrete examples from the city of Westminster, 10 new portable urinals have been installed in the west end on Friday and Saturday nights only. These are somewhat gruesome statistics, but during the past year, those urinals collected some 12,000 gallons of urine at a cost of £91,780 per year.
      Members who have spent any time in the west end for late-night entertainment, particularly during the summer, will know that we have a night refuse collection service, which collects an average of 110 tonnes of waste each night, seven nights a week. A regular and persistent cleansing, degreasing and flushing service deals with much of the pavement in Oxford street and surrounding areas—it sounds like the Forth bridge. Indeed, in Westminster 4,500 km of streets have to be cleaned in that way. Likewise, evidence shows that the peak time for crime in a place such as Westminster is 3 am. An area of the west end covering only 4 per cent. of the city of Westminster generates some 40 per cent. of the crime.

      149
      For that reason, above all, we believe that a transitional period of two months is far too short. It was suggested in Committee that we should extend that period to six or even 12 months. I hope that, in attempting to find a compromise for my amendments, my suggestion of four months represents a sensible way forward. I accept that my statistics apply specifically to Westminster.
      There is no doubt that late-night entertainment is firmly established in Westminster and throughout the other parts of the west end. Westminster has the UK's largest 24-hour economy and it should be stated once and for all that the city of Westminster is not opposed to late licences. People are proud of the diverse and vibrant night-time economy in the west end and beyond. However, if it is to continue, it needs to work well and be a well-managed mix of business and community interests.
      I have always felt that nothing could be worse for the medium and long-term future of many of these areas than becoming ever more denuded of a residential population. It is interesting to learn that the other part of my constituency—the City of London—has for the first time in 200 years, as demonstrated by the most recent census, had an increase in its population.
      Suddenly it has become more desirable to a residential population, and we need to maintain that vibrancy and fluidity by making the area a pleasant place for families to live. That is essential if cities are to become more liveable. It has been part of this Government's agenda, and I am sure that it will be part of a future Conservative Government's agenda, to ensure that our cities become much more habitable. We have seen great success stories in places such as Manchester and Liverpool, after decades of what appeared to be an intolerable and inexorable decline. A sensible and balanced licensing policy can play an important part in such regeneration.
      Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that the policies of restricting out-of-town development and the insistence on building mixed economies in the centre of our cities, which were started under the previous Government and continued by this Government, are important to his point? People who live in the centre of cities must be considered alongside the 24-hour people who travel in and out of the centre. That point is even more urgent than it was 20 years ago, when there was a division between the commercial and the residential.
      Mr. Field: I could not agree more, and it may have been unfair of me to fail to point out the successes of the previous Conservative Administration in which, of course, my right hon. Friend played a leading role. He hit the nail on the head.
      The number of licensed premises in the City of Westminster as a whole has grown to more than 3,000, two thirds of which are located in the small stress area commonly known as the west end. For the last full calendar year, Westminster received some 1,024 applications relating to entertainment licences and night café licences, only 14 of which were refused. That is an enormous burden, and moving from the transitional arrangements to an entirely new regime in such a short time will lead to an administrative logjam in Westminster. It will be very difficult to make a smooth transition.
      150
      In the past year, 812 applications were made for public entertainment licences and night café licences and only a small number were refused. I hope that the Minister will give some thought to how a transitional regime that gives only eight or nine weeks notice can possibly work in the larger London boroughs.
      Discussion has taken place at various stages about fees, and I do not wish to reiterate the arguments. However, an extended night-time economy means that local authorities face numerous significant costs and burdens. It is vital that they have the ability to manage their town centres using locally determined strategies in partnership with all stakeholders. Under the Bill, authorities will also have substantial extra administrative costs, to which we have referred. The local authorities believe that any licensing regime must allow councils to recoup the cost of delivering the scheme. It is not seen, and should not be seen, as a money-spinner to allow local councils to make significant sums of money. We went into considerable detail in Committee to explain that no one considers it to be a money-spinner. Indeed, the large costs incurred for some of the highlighted premises—for example, the Royal Albert hall, which pays some £12,000 to £15,000 a year—were something of a loss leader for Westminster city council.
      As well as a smooth transition, local authorities wish to ensure that they have the ability to set locally determined fees that reflect local circumstances, but based on Government guidelines indicating applicable costs, instead of relying on centrally prescribed fixed amounts, as currently proposed. The initial start-up costs for the City of Westminster, before it received any applications, would be about £100,000 and the projected fee income—based on an average of £300 in the transition year—would be just under £972,000, or just under £1 million.
      That would lead, on the council's calculation, to a shortfall of £200,000 in administrative costs.
      I hope that the Minister can give some guidance on fees. I accept that I have gone slightly beyond the amendments, but the point is a relevant one. I also seek some guidance on the transitional arrangements.
      11.15 pm
      Mr. John Redwood: I should normally favour deregulation and greater freedom and choice, but I have been swayed by the arguments this evening and by my reading elsewhere. There is a real problem, and I hope that the Minister listens attentively and sensitively.
      The nub of the Bill is summed up in the dilemma posed by the amendments. On the one hand, many of us would like businesses to have greater freedom to provide a wider range of service and choice to their customers. On the other hand, we all represent people who live close to licensed premises, and they have rights as well. They have bought their properties on the basis of a certain licensing regime and a certain pattern of conduct. They will naturally be very upset if that pattern of conduct is changed rapidly and in a direction that is adverse to their interests. I hope that the Minister understands that this is a real issue and that the amendments modestly try to make small improvements for those who live near licensed premises.

      151
      I assure the House that my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) is right to say that the provisions apply not only to his own part of London. They could apply to any major urban or metropolitan area, in towns and elsewhere. Conflicts can arise between businesses and licence users and residents. My right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) rightly reminded us that getting more life into our inner cities has been a bipartisan policy. We all welcome it, but there must be some restriction of antisocial conduct and prevention of antisocial hours from getting out of control or being permitted or encouraged so that the amenity of a city is wrecked for those who live or work in it.
      I hope that the Minister will respond positively to the modest suggestion of a longer transition period, albeit still a short one given the complexities in many areas of licensing. A great deal of work remains to be done. I hope that he will also respond sympathetically to the idea of undertakings so that people can be reassured that there will not be sudden lurches in the regime.
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) spoke with great knowledge, having participated considerably in the Standing Committee on the Bill. He expressed intimate knowledge of his constituency here in the centre of London.
      I rise primarily to support the brief but accurately expressed case of the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). As several speakers have said, this issue is not just for the large cities. It relates to many towns and large villages up and down the country. In my own constituency, there are severe problems with antisocial behaviour resulting from alcohol abuse, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights in the centre of Macclesfield. That makes it extremely unpleasant for those who go there to dine out or to drink modestly and to behave and enjoy themselves. It creates tremendous problems for those who live in the town centre.
      Antisocial behaviour is a problem, and the police find it extremely difficult to do anything about it. I hope that the Minister will give rational responses to the many points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, but I support the case put by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras for ensuring that the undertakings and conditions applying to existing licences can be carried forward to the new regime.
      The Report stage of a Bill offers Back Benchers who were unable to speak on Second Reading or were not members of the Standing Committee their only opportunity to advance the interests of their constituents and constituencies. The Minister has a reputation for sensitivity and for being rational and helpful to Members of Parliament who have experience of the matters that we are discussing, so will he respond positively to the amendments?
      Why is it not possible to carry existing undertakings forward into the new regime? That could be simply done. The Government could help the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras to deal with any
      152
      modest drafting deficiencies in the provisions, or could themselves put them right in due course, if they are unable to do so at present. The amendment is reasonable and it has cross-party support. The House is trying to come to the right decision and I strongly support the amendment for which the right hon. Gentleman so ably argued.
      Dr. Howells: It is extremely refreshing to hear the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton) and his right hon. and hon. Friends argue the case for residents. If the hon. Gentleman had been in the Chamber earlier this evening, he would have heard me berated from both sides of the House for wanting to retain a bit of regulation covering loud rock bands playing in pubs, and for not giving developers a cast-iron right, as the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) wanted, to open up huge pubs, no matter what might happen to the community. It was wonderful to hear the contribution of the hon. Member for Macclesfield, and I am glad that he made it.
      It was interesting to hear the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) say that we need to get people back into our city centres. The right hon. Gentleman is a cultured man, so he will have seen Hogarth's Gin Lane paintings. The problems are not new; they have always been with us. The scale, however, is phenomenal.
      In Committee, we talked a great deal about the huge number of people who migrate to our cities on Friday and Saturday nights. As the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) reminded us, nowhere attracts people like the west end of London; it always has, and I hope that it always will. The hon. Gentleman might also have mentioned Manchester, where the police tell me that 150,000 people go in to the centre, many, but not all of them, to drink.
      The hon. Member for Macclesfield made an important point about businesses such as high-quality restaurants. When I was in Manchester, I was told that the clientele of such restaurants found the atmosphere on the street rather intimidating. It is not that people set out to be intimidating, but that where there are 150,000 young men and women who might have drunk a bit too much, a person could feel a little insecure late on a Saturday night when they were out with their family enjoying a good meal in a good restaurant. We need to take that into account.
      The group of amendments broadly covers some of the issues that will emerge during transition from the old licensing regime to the regime established by the Bill. I am not sure that amendment No. 61, which was moved by the hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire, would achieve the effect that he intended. It would certainly amend the Data Protection Act 1998 so as to maintain the ability to disclose information under section 35(1), which is otherwise subject to non-disclosure provisions where the disclosure is required by law or made in connection with legal proceedings in respect of certain information pertaining to clubs, companies or other legal persons notwithstanding the repeal of certain provisions in the Licensing Act 1964.
      In our view, amendment No. 61 is wholly unnecessary. Section 35(1) of the 1998 Act will continue to apply, and appropriate protections of personal data

      153
      in the 1998 Act will continue to apply to information and data held by licensing authorities for the purposes of their licensing functions. Maintaining the ability to disclose information as required by law and in the context of legal proceedings is right, in the Government's view.
      Clause 180, which will permit the provision of information to other licensing authorities and responsible authorities, is restricted to the purpose of facilitating the exercise of the authority's functions under the Bill. That is as it should be. The hon. Member for North-East Cambridgeshire shakes his head, but I had hoped that that would give him some comfort.
      It may be sensible for me to deal with amendments Nos. 169, 170, 179 and 180 next, because they also address converted licences and undertakings. Although adopting slightly different approaches, those amendments would require a premises licence to be granted under the conversion provisions in schedule 8, subject to such conditions as reproduced the effect of the undertakings subject to which the existing licence or licences—for example, a justices' licence—had been granted or renewed.
      The Bill will provide comprehensively that conditions attached to the existing licences will be reproduced in the new premises licence. In other words, everything that the licensing justices, for example, thought should be legally enforceable and which was within their discretion to impose would be attached as conditions to those existing licences. However, that is slightly different from what was proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, as he has explained.
      Undertakings are very different from what I have just described, and it is important to understand what they are. I chose the example of a justices' licence because that is the area of current licensing where undertakings are often mentioned. Indeed, such undertakings most commonly arise in the context of justices' off-licences, such as those held by supermarkets.
      Undertakings, which are sometimes sought by licensing justices, have no legal force. For the content of undertakings to have legal force, they must form conditions in existing licences. Undertakings may be considered by the justices when licences are being renewed, and if the undertakings have been broken, it could lead to the renewal of licences being refused. That is a very useful tool, but it is a discretionary practice, and we have discovered that it is carried on only by certain justices. However, any breach of an undertaking cannot of itself lead to a criminal prosecution, as would be the case with licence conditions, and undertakings cannot be enforced.
      In essence, such undertakings are entirely voluntary, and as such they do not attach to a licence. Under current legislation, they amount to no more than a personal promise by the applicant for a licence or a renewal. The question therefore is whether such promises should be made mandatory for licence conversion applicants under paragraph 2 of schedule 8, to provide information on such non-legal, personal matters, giving those undertakings new legal status and
      154
      force, but it should be remembered that they may have existed without legal status or force for a number of years. That presents a difficulty.
      Nick Harvey: The Minister says that the undertakings could not be used in prosecuting a licensee, but where such undertakings have been extracted and given, could not the magistrates nevertheless revoke the licence if the undertakings were not adhered to? Although the undertakings cannot be used in criminal prosecutions, they have some bite, as they can be used to take away the licence.
      Dr. Howells: As I explained, undertakings are a very useful tool, as things stand—but I shall say why the regime that we propose will be much more useful. However, I take the point of the hon. Gentleman's argument.
      I have one key reason, however, for believing that the House should not agree to the proposal. Under the Bill, interested parties in responsible authorities can request the review of any premises licence on a ground relating to the licensing objectives. That provides ample opportunity for residents and others to seek a remedy if a licensee does something, or fails to do something, that was previously the subject of an undertaking that they consider should or should not be happening—provided, of course, that the act or omission is relevant to the licensing objectives. I remind the House that those include the prevention of crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. I therefore assure the House that the Bill provides ample protections.
      11.30 pm
      The Bill also provides more opportunities than there are at present for residents and others to seek a remedy if premises cause a particular problem. There is nothing to be gained in transferring undertakings to premises licences.
      Mr. Gummer: Surely the point made by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was correct: if the condition that has been there is passed on, all the wisdom that led to that condition can be passed on automatically. There seems no reason why that should not be the case. The difficulty for the House in following the Minister is that we can see that to have both provisions would be sensible, but to leave one out would seem to lose a deal of experience.
      Dr. Howells: I am concerned about losing that experience, which we debated a great deal in Committee. I shall try to explain why safeguards exist to ensure that that experience is not lost, and why undertakings—which reflect some of the worries given as illustrations by the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster—were agreed, as they cannot be imposed, in the first place.
      I missed out a question asked by the hon. Member for North Devon (Nick Harvey). A licence cannot be revoked for a breach of undertakings, which exist as agreements. There may be other reasons why a licensee's behaviour, under the present regime, should mean that he loses his licence, but an undertaking cannot be used as a legal means of revoking a licence.

      155
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras said that hundreds of neighbourhoods would be affected. He implied that undertakings in respect of pubs, nightclubs and so on are common, but they are not. They are more common in London. He should note that in the good practice guide from which he quoted—to which I shall refer in more detail in a moment—they are associated mostly not with pubs or nightclubs but with supermarkets and off-licences. They are used much more rarely in connection with pubs, and some misinformation may have been disseminated about how widespread the practice is. We do not think that it is that widespread.
      Mr. Dobson: The only thing that I know that casts doubt on what I am sure that my hon. Friend says in good faith is that not only does our proposal have the full support of the Metropolitan police but of the Association of Chief Police Officers, which represents police forces in neighbourhoods all over the country. If the practice is not widespread, I cannot see why they supplied the wording, which was duly turned by the Clerks into something more orderly and tabled as the amendment.
      Dr. Howells: I have no doubt that my right hon. Friend was told that by the police. We had many discussions about the selective lobbying that we received on the Bill and we frequently found in Committee that lobbying groups had told the Opposition one thing and told us another. I have no doubt that the police and ACPO are getting their retaliation in first. They will press for the hardest possible measures to make their jobs easier.
      Mr. Mark Field: It is curious that the Minister draws a distinction between London and other places. Surely the issue is whether undertakings will be relevant, not whether the issue relates to the capital city or throughout the country. The concern is about undertakings, not regionalisation.
      Dr. Howells: I made it clear that I was referring specifically to the claim made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras that hundreds and thousands of communities would suffer if undertakings were not incorporated in the Bill in the manner proposed by amendment No. 170.
      As the guide published by the Justices' Clerks Society states, undertakings are based on custom and not in any way on the written law, which we are debating today. They are not enforceable in law and rely entirely on the co-operation of the licence holder. That is interesting because if an undertaking is broken under the existing regime—the wonderful system of undertakings—a person might have to wait three years before anything could be done about it. We have addressed that major weakness in the Bill. Under the existing system, action could occur only when renewal proceedings took place. In the meantime, the undertaking would be simply a promise that had been broken. That is why the review arrangements in the Bill are infinitely better and more dependable than the existing system. If a licence holder
      156
      caused a nuisance or problems of disorder, the matter could be considered at the review of the licence, irrespective of whether it was the subject of an earlier undertaking.
      Mr. Dobson: If the advice that my hon. Friend has received is correct, why does the licensing justices' manual say that if a licensee has obtained a licence subject to an undertaking, the licensee may make application at any sessions to be released from the undertaking? If an undertaking has no force, there is no need for a licensee to bother to apply to be relieved of it. The manual also says that if a request is refused, the applicant's only remedy is to make application for a new justices' licence. Clearly those responsible for advising magistrates throughout the country believe that an undertaking does have force.
      Dr. Howells: An undertaking clearly does not have legal force. My right hon. Friend asked why anyone would bother to apply to be relieved of an undertaking but I can think of many reasons why a licensed premises or a licence holder might apply for an undertaking to be revoked or modified. For example, a different business might open next door or there might be a proliferation of vertical drinking establishments, which could alter the need for an undertaking. However, an undertaking does not have the force of law.
      Mr. Dobson: I understand my hon. Friend's point that circumstances might change to lead the licensee to want to unload an undertaking, but why would anyone bother if an undertaking cannot be enforced? Why would a person go to the bother of returning to a magistrate and risk being turned down?
      Dr. Howells: I would like to hear of a case of a licensee going voluntarily to a magistrate and risking being turned down and losing their licence. I bet that such a person is a pretty rare creature. However, I can imagine many situations in which licensees would want to keep sweet with licensing justices and be prepared to play footsie with them if they thought that it would help their next licence application. However, there will not be licensing justices.
      There will be a licensing authority instead. For the first time, those hard-pressed residents whom my right hon. Friend mentioned will have the opportunity to ask for a licence to be reviewed. They cannot do that now. The ability to do that is infinitely preferable to some kind of old boys' agreement between a licensee and licensing justices that might sometimes benefit local residents, but is designed for completely different purposes.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: There is not only the review but the additional powers in clause 158 that allow senior police officers to close down premises for up to 24 hours on the grounds of public nuisance owing to noise emanating from premises or actual or likely disorder from a licensed premise. The police do not have those powers now and they will help residents.
      Dr. Howells: Yes, and if right hon. and hon. Members read the Bill they will see that it greatly strengthens the hand of the police, responsible authorities and local

      157
      residents when they encounter difficulties not just in London, but all over the country. That is infinitely preferable to the existing situation.
      Mr. Dobson: My hon. Friend knows full well that I welcome the bulk of the Bill and the strengthening of the feeble arrangements for protecting the interests of residents and neighbouring businesses. However, I cannot understand the Government's rooted objection to our requirement—the very least that we propose—that when people apply to the new licensing body, they should include in their application a list of the undertakings that apply. I cannot understand why that is unacceptable.
      Dr. Howells: I understand my right hon. Friend's argument and know that he supports the Bill. It may well be the case that the conditions imposed on the licence will include many of the features of the undertakings, but I have obviously failed to communicate to him that those undertakings do not have statutory force. The Bill deals precisely with how we might maintain the order in communities such as the one that he represents. We have proposed a much simpler way of doing that. Undertakings are not statutory creatures and cannot be incorporated into the Bill as it stands. I do not accept the amendment to that effect because the regulations that we propose are much stronger, much simpler to understand and give local residents a much better opportunity to object.
      Sir Nicholas Winterton: Is the Minister saying that the undertakings to which the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) referred could be translated into conditions that could be part of the new regime? If that is the case, he is going a long way towards reassuring us.
      Dr. Howells: I want to be careful in the answer that I give. My impulse is to say, yes, it could happen. It would certainly be up to the licensing authority to insist on conditions in any licence to which it agrees. If it considers that those undertakings—they would have to be defined as something else—are necessary conditions for allowing a licence to be granted then so be it, but that flexibility must be given to the licensing authority because there may be many other considerations and variables that it might want to include in the agreement.
      11.45 pm
      I turn now to amendments Nos. 138 to 141, in the name of the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). Among other things, schedule 8 provides that when an application is made for conversion of existing licences to a premises licence, or for conversion of registration certificates in the case of clubs, and no decision has been taken by the licensing authority after two months, the application will be deemed granted. Similarly, where an application is made to vary such a converted licence or club premises certificate, and no decision has been taken by the licensing authority, it is to be deemed refused two months after it was received.
      158
      Essentially, the conversion of existing licences, as a grandfather right, is an entirely administrative process, in which there can be no real excuse for delay. There has to be statutory pressure to resolve those cases, and that pressure is established by the time limit of two months, after which the application must be granted. We cannot allow licensing authorities to spin out transition for ever, and converted licences would only permit that which earlier licensing authorities or licensing justices had permitted in the past. Variations would be automatically deemed refused because no previous licensing authority would have sanctioned that variation in the past, and it is important that it is considered fully and that interested parties and responsible authorities have an opportunity to make representations. Deemed refusal would provoke an appeal and provide for finality.
      The amendments would change from two months to four months the period following the lodging of applications for converted premises licences or club premises certificates and variations of those licences and certificates after which the application would be deemed granted or refused if no decision had been taken. Although I completely understand the hon. Gentleman's desire to ease the pressure and burden on licensing authorities, I am concerned that some, although by no means all, would be inclined to delay and inefficiency. We have to make a judgment. I acknowledge the strength of the hon. Gentleman's argument, but there is a terrible rule that says that if the limit is four months, the job will be done in four months, but if the limit is two months, it is a statement of faith from me saying that the job will be done in two months. I shall stick at that shorter period.
      I recognise that some larger authorities will have many applications to deal with, but they will of course have a much larger income to deploy in performing that task. The Government have made a promise to the people of this country that we will deliver the reform of licensing law, and we fully intend to do that and to ensure that the transition is completed quickly. None of the new licences will come into force until the transitional period ends, so the benefits of reform will not be seen on our high streets until then. I do not want to encourage delay. Despite the force of the hon. Gentleman's arguments and the examples that he has given us, I hope that, with that explanation, he will not press the amendments.
      Mr. Moss: I am grateful for the Minister's response, particularly on amendment No. 61 in my name. I accept his argument that it is probably unnecessary, and I shall seek to withdraw it after I have commented on amendments Nos. 138 to 141, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field). The first two deal with the determination of applications and variations in respect of premises licences, and the others deal similar matters relating to clubs.
      We have received strong representation from the Local Government Association and certain councils who fear that the two-month transition period allotted in the Bill for determination places too great a burden on them. Obviously we are talking about councils that will have to deal with a large number of licences.

      159
      They feel that people who do not get the determination right will go to appeal, as the Minister said, so magistrates courts could quickly become clogged up if things go pear-shaped.
      The Minister talked about statutory pressure. We concede that if there is not some pressure in the legislation, everyone will go to the wire. We are not asking, in the Minister's words, for forever. We are asking for an extension of the two-month limit, which we think is reasonable and sensible, given all the work that needs to be done in the transition period to bring about a fundamental shift from licensing justices to the licensing authorities or local authorities. We therefore want to press amendment No. 138 to a vote, but I beg to ask leave to withdraw amendment. No. 61.
      Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

    Schedule 7

      REPEALS
      Amendments made: No. 98, in page 149, line 25, at end insert—

      'Common Informers Act 1951 (c. 39)

      In the Schedule—the entry relating to section 11 of the Universities (Wine Licences) Act 1743, and the entry relating to the Sunday Observance Act 1780.'.

      No. 122, in page 149, line 41, leave out line 41 and insert—

      'in subsection (1), the words "; and accordingly as from that date—" and paragraphs (c) and (e), and'.

      No. 123, in page 150, line 45, at end insert—

      'Licensing (Scotland) Act 1976 (c. 66)

      In Schedule 7, paragraphs 9(a), (b), (d) and (f), 10, 11 and 12.'.

      No. 124, in page 151, line 28, leave out 'to 133' and insert 'and 132'.
      No. 125, in page 151, line 28, at end insert—

      'In section 133(1), the definitions of "development corporation" and "the 1964 Act".'.

      No. 126, in page 151, line 37, leave out '29' and insert '29(a)(i)'.
      No. 127, in page 152, line 9, at beginning of second column, insert—

      'Section 3(1A).'.

      No. 128, in page 152, line 9, at end insert—

      'Sections 17 and 18.'.

      No. 129, in page 152, line 12, leave out 'paragraph 15' and insert
      'paragraphs 2, 3, 6, 7, 8, 14, 15 and 16(a) and the word "and" immediately following it.'.
      No. 130, in page 152, line 15, leave out

      ',paragraphs 1(1) and 2 to 5'

      and insert—

      'paragraph 1(1),in paragraph 1(3), the words following paragraph (c), and paragraphs 2 to 5'.

      No. 131, in page 154, leave out line 6.—[Dr. Howells.]

    Schedule 8

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISION ETC.
      Amendment made: No. 99, in page 157, line 6, leave out from 'copy' to 'unless' in line 7.—[Dr. Howells.]
      Amendment proposed: No. 138, in page 158, line 8, leave out 'two' and insert 'four'.—[Mr. Mark Field.]
      Question put, That the amendment be made:—
      The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 249.

      Division No. 236]

      [11:52 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Grayling, Chris

      Allan, Richard

      Grieve, Dominic

      Amess, David

      Gummer, rh John

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Hammond, Philip

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Harvey, Nick

      Bacon, Richard

      Hawkins, Nick

      Barker, Gregory

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Heald. Oliver

      Bellingham, Henry

      Hendry, Charles

      Bercow, John

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Boswell, Tim

      Hughes, Simons (Southwark N)

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Jack, rh Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Brazier, Julian

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Krikbride, Miss Julie

      Browing, Mrs Angela

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Brunett, John

      Lait, Mrs Jacqui

      Burns, Simon

      Lamb, Norman

      Burt, Alistair

      Laws, David (Yeovil)

      Butterfill, John

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Calton, Mrs Pasty

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Cash, William

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Chope, Christopher

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Collins, Tim

      Loughton, Tim

      Curry, rh David

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Maclean, rh David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Malins, Humfrey

      Dodds, Nigel

      Maude, rh Francis

      Doughty, Sue

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Evans, Nigel

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Fallon, Michael

      Moss, malcolm

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Norman, Archie

      Flook, Adrian

      O'Brien, Stepehn (Eddisbury)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Öpik, Lembit

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Osborne, George (Totton)

      Garnier, Edward

      Paice, James

      George, Andrw (St. Ives)

      Paterson, Owen

      Gibb, Nick (Bognor, Regis)

      Pickles, Eric

      Gidley, Sandra

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Goodman, Paul

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      161

      Redwood, rh John

      Thurso, John

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Viggers, Peter

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Walter, Robert

      Ruffley, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Watkinson, Angela

      Sanders, Adrian

      Whittingdale, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Wiggin, Bill

      Selous Andrew

      Willetts, David

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

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

      winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Steen, Anthony

      Young, rh Sir George

      Stunell, Andrew

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Mr. Robert Syms and

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Cohen, Harry

      Alexander, Douglas

      Coleman, Iain

      Allen, Graham

      Connarty, Michael

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Corston, Jean

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cousins, Jim

      Austin, John

      Cranston, Ross

      Banks, Tony

      Crausby, David

      Barren, rh Kevin

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Battle, John

      Cummings, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

      Beard, Nigel

      Benn, Hilary

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Berry, Roger

      David, Wayne

      Best, Harold

      Davidson, Ian

      Betts, Clive

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Blackman, Liz

      Dawson, Hilton

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Blizzard, Bob

      Denham, rh John

      Borrow, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Browne, Desmond

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Bryant, Chris

      Efford, Clive

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Burden, Richard

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Farrelly, Paul

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Fisher, Mark

      Cairns, David

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Follett, Barbara

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Caton, Martin

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Foulkes, rh George

      Challen, Colin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Chaytor, David

      Gardiner, Barry

      Clapham, Michael

      Gerrard, Neil

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Godsiff, Roger

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Goggins, Paul

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Clelland, David

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      162

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hanson, David

      Olner, Bill

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Healey, John

      Organ, Diana

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Owen, Albert

      Hendrick, Mark

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Heppell, John

      Perham, Linda

      Heyes, David

      Picking, Anne

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Plaskitt, James

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Pollard, Kerry

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Purchase, Ken

      Purnell, James

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Illsley, Eric

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Rooney, Terry

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Ruane, Chris

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Sawford, Phil

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Kemp, Fraser

      Sheridan, Jim

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Kidney, David

      Singh, Marsha

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Lammy, David

      Stevenson, George

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Stringer, Graham

      Love, Andrew

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Tipping, Paddy

      McDonnell, John

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      MacDougall, John

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      McFall, John

      Truswell, Paul

      McIsaac, Shona

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      McWalter, Tony

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      McWilliam, John

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Watts, David

      Miller, Andrew

      White, Brian

      Mole, Chris

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Morley, Elliot

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Mullin, Chris

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      163

      Woolas, Phil

      Wright Tony (Cannock)

      Worthington, Tony

      Wyatt, Derek

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mr. Jim Murphy and

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      Question accordingly negatived.

    Schedule 8

      TRANSITIONAL PROVISION ETC.
      Amendments made: No. 100, in page 159, line 13, after '19' insert
      ', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.
      No. 101, in page 159, line 19, after '19' insert
      ', [mandatory condition in licences: exhibition of films]'.
      No. 102, in page 163, line 25, leave out from 'copy' to 'unless' in line 26.
      No. 103, in page 165, line 9, after '72' insert
      ', [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films]'.
      No. 104, in page 165, line 13, after '72' insert
      ', [mandatory condition in certificates: exhibition of films]'.——[Dr. Howells.]

    New Clause 2

      MANDATORY CONDITION IN LICENCES: EXHIBITION OF FILMS
      '(1) Where a premises licence authorises the exhibition of films, the licence must include a condition requiring the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with this section.
      (2) Where the film classification body is specified in the licence, unless subsection (3)(b) applies, admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that body.
      (3) Where—

      (a) the film classification body is not specified in the licence, or

      (b) the relevant licensing authority has notified the holder of the licence that this subsection applies to the film in question,

      admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that licensing authority.
      (4) In this section—
      "children" means persons aged under 18; and
      "film classification body" means the person or persons designated as the authority under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c.39) (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification).'.—[Dr. Howells.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 3

      MANDATORY CONDITION IN CERTIFICATES: EXHIBITION OF FILMS
      '(1) Where a club premises certificate authorises the exhibition of films, the certificate must include a condition requiring the admission of children to the exhibition of any film to be restricted in accordance with this section.
      164
      (2) Where the film classification body is specified in the certificate, unless subsection (3)(b) applies, admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that body.
      (3) Where—

      (a) the film classification body is not specified in the certificate, or

      (b) the relevant licensing authority has notified the club which holds the certificate that this subsection applies to the film in question,

      admission of children must be restricted in accordance with any recommendation made by that licensing authority.
      (4) In this section—
      "children" means persons aged under 18; and
      "film classification body" means the person or persons designated as the authority under section 4 of the Video Recordings Act 1984 (c.39) (authority to determine suitability of video works for classification).'.—[Dr. Howells.]
      Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 7

      ALLOWING CHILDREN INTO LICENSED PREMISES
      '(1) In pursuit of the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d) children under the age of 18 are only permitted to enter licensed premises when accompanied by an adult over the age of 18.
      (2) For the purposes of subsection (1) these licensed premises are—

      (a) public houses, and

      (b) any similar establishments whose primary purpose is the consumption of alcohol.

      (3) Subsection (1) does not apply where the premises license operating schedule sets out clear, unambiguous steps to promote the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d) and which are agreed and accepted by the relevant licensing authority'.—[Mr. Moss.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Moss: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      The new clause would replace a clause that was voted through in the other place, but taken out by the Government in Committee in this place. It concerns allowing children into licensed premises. As the Bill stands, clauses 143 to 150 deal with children and alcohol, but nowhere in any of those clauses do the Government see fit to restrict access by children of any age. In fact, the presumption is that children will be allowed on to licensed premises unless the licensee sets out in his operating schedule reasons why he cannot accommodate that and makes the position clear to the licensing authority.
      New clause 7 reverses the presumption. We tabled it after some discussion with the police—the same chief constable and members of the Association of Chief Police Officers to whom the Minister referred earlier. They want a presumption that no child under 18 will be allowed into licensed premises unless accompanied by an adult over 18. However, subsection (1) of the new clause would not apply
      "where the premises licence operating schedule sets out clear, unambiguous steps to promote the licensing objective in section 4(2)(d)"—

      165
      to protect children from harm—
      "and which are agreed and accepted by the relevant licensing authority".
      The presumption is that children should not be allowed into licensed premises unless accompanied, except when the licensee sets out specific steps on how he or she will deal with young children on the premises.
      The Government's approach conveys conflicting signals. On the one hand, they perceive a problem with alcohol and young people and they want to reduce consumption. On the other, the Bill provides that children of all ages can attain access to licensed premises. That sends the wrong signal. For example, the Bill provides that it is illegal to sell alcohol to children and for a level 5 fine, which is £20,000. It also provides that someone who is under 18 and consumes alcohol on relevant premises could be fined at level 3—again, a significant sum. The Government appear to encourage children to enter licensed premises, but seek to criminalise them for succumbing to the temptation of consuming alcohol there.
      New clause 7 would replace a similar provision, which their Lordships strongly supported, but which was removed in Committee. When the Bill reverts to another place on Thursday, I am sure that the matter will be considered again.
      Ross Cranston: Productive meetings have taken place with children's charities and organisations such as Alcohol Concern. They have been reassured by discussions with my hon. Friend the Minister.
      Although protection for children does not appear on the face of the Bill, it will be included in guidance. I am sure that hon. Members would be reassured if my hon. Friend could comment on the guidance.
      Dr. Howells: I may have misheard my hon. and learned Friend, but I emphasise that protecting children is one of the Bill's four licensing objectives.
      It being five and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 106, Noes 258.

      Division No. 237]

      [12:13 am

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Burns, Simon

      Amess, David

      Burt, Alistair

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Butterfill, John

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Cash, William

      Bacon, Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Barker, Gregory

      Collins, Tim

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Curry, rh David

      Bellingham, Henry

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Bercow, John

      Blunt, Crispin

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Boswell, Tim

      Dodds, Nigel

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

      Evans, Nigel

      Fabricant, Michael

      Brady, Graham

      Fallon, Michael

      Brazier, Julian

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      166

      Flook, Adrian

      Paterson, Owen

      Forth, rh Eric

      Pickles, Eric

      Fox, Dr. Liam

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Garnier, Edward

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Goodman, Paul

      Redwood, rh John

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Gummer, rh John

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Hammond, Philip

      Rosindell, Andrew

      Hawkins, Nick

      Ruffley, David

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Heald, Oliver

      Selous, Andrew

      Hendry, Charles

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Simmonds, Mark

      Jack, rh Michael

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Steen, Anthony

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Llwyd Elfyn

      Viggers, Peter

      Loughton, Tim

      Walter, Robert

      Luff, Peter (M- Worcs)

      Waterson, Nigel

      McIntosh, M,ss Anne

      Watkinson, Angela

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Whittingdale, John

      Malins, Humfrey

      Wiggin, Bill

      Maude, rh Francis

      Willetts, David

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Wilshire, David

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Young, rh Sir George

      Norman, Archie

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Mr. Robert Syms and

      Paice, James

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Ainger, Nick

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Burden, Richard

      Alexander, Douglas

      Burnett, John

      Allan, Richard

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Allen, Graham

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cairns, David

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Banks, Tony

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Barren, rh Kevin

      Caplin, Ivor

      Battle, John

      Caton, Martin

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Beard, Nigel

      Challen, Colin

      Benn, Hilary

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Chaytor, David

      Berry, Roger

      Clapham, Michael

      Best, Harold

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Betts, Clive

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Borrow, David

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Coleman, Iain

      Brennan, Kevin

      Connarty, Michael

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Corston, Jean

      Cousins, Jim

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cranston, Ross

      Browne, Desmond

      Crausby, David

      Bryant, Chris

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      167

      Cummings, John

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Kemp, Fraser

      David, Wayne

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Davidson, Ian

      Kidney, David

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dawson, Hilton

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Denham, rh John

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Dismore, Andrew

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Lamb, Norman

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Lammy, David

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Doughty, Sue

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Efford, Clive

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Love, Andrew

      Ennis, Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Farrelly, Paul

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Fisher, Mark

      McCafferty, Chris

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Follett, Barbara

      McDonnell, John

      Foster, rh Derek

      MacDougall, John

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      McFall, John

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      McIsaac, Shona

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Foulkes, rh George

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      McWalter, Tony

      Gardiner, Barry

      McWilliam, John

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Michael, rh Alun

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Miller, Andrew

      Gidley, Sandra

      Mole, Chris

      Godsiff, Roger

      Morley, Elliot

      Goggins, Paul

      Mullin, Chris

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Olner, Bill

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hanson, David

      Öpik, Lembit

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Organ, Diana

      Harvey, Nick

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Healey, John

      Owen, Albert

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Perham, Linda

      Hendrick, Mark

      Picking, Anne

      Heppell, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Heyes, David

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Plaskitt, James

      Hinchliffe, David

      Pollard, Kerry

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Purnell, James

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Illsley, Eric

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Rendel, David

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Rooney, Terry

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Ruane, Chris

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      168

      Sanders, Adrian

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Truswell, Paul

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Sawford, Phil

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      vis, Dr. Rudi

      Singh, Marsha

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

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

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Winterson, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Stevenson, George

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Woolas, Phil

      Worthington, Tony

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Thurso, John

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Tipping, Paddy

      Jim Fitzpatrick and

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Vernon Coaker

      Question accordingly negatived.
      Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's and Prince of Wales's Consent signified.]
      12.24 am
      The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am sure that Members on both sides of the House recognise the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) to our proceedings. His elevation to the post of Minister of State, Department of Transport in the recent reshuffle means that this was his last appearance as Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting. That gives rise to an important question: does a swan song constitute a licensable activity?
      Dr. Howells: Very good!
      Tessa Jowell: I am glad my hon. Friend liked it.
      As is widely recognised in the House, the licensing reforms are overdue. It was the legislators of the Great War who formulated our permitted hours to ensure that people turned up at the munitions factories sober. The Licensing Act 1964 did no more than consolidate existing legislation, and the last significant changes were made in 1961, when new arrangements were introduced for registered members' clubs.The current system of licensing is out of date, complicated and costly. It is unresponsive to local concerns. Even more important is the fact that in some ways it actually contributes to the crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour that can blight our town and city centres. Not surprisingly, people expect better.

      169
      This is a far-reaching Bill that will have a material impact on the central issue of quality of life, and how we as a nation use our leisure time. It will sweep away swathes of red tape and bureaucracy, delivering to the industry savings of nearly £2 billion over 10 years. Throughout the drafting and the debate, we have sought to maintain the critical balance between regulation and protection of the public, particularly children and vulnerable people.
      Where the Bill is deregulatory, it is also responsible. There is no denying that alcohol-fuelled crime and disorder, nuisance and antisocial behaviour are a real problem. No doubt Members on both sides of the House have experienced that problem in their constituencies. The Bill therefore contains a range of measures to tackle alcohol-related crime and disorder and antisocial behaviour. Specifically, it provides statutory rights for local residents to make representations on applications for new licences, and to call for the review of existing licences. It provides for the establishment of clear priorities for licensing regulation in relation to crime and disorder, public safety, public nuisance and the protection of children from harm. It will allow the police to close any licensed premises on the spot. There will be scope for licensing authorities, when necessary, to address "cumulative effect", density and saturation. There will be a flexible range of remedies to replace the single all-or-nothing loss of licence that currently applies: remedies such as the restriction of opening hours or removal of a licensable activity from a licence and, when necessary, the suspension or full revocation of the licence. There is a wide range of measures to allow licensing authorities and the police to manage the night-time economy.
      I am grateful for the House's valuable work in building on the improvements made to the Bill in another place.
      I would like to take this opportunity to thank all Members, including Conservative Members, for their constructive approach, by and large, in Committee. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. Howells) would like to echo that sentiment. The Bill has been strengthened in several important respects since it was introduced last year.
      We have already debated the issue of children's access to licensed premises. There is a clear need for reform of the current legislation on children's access to such premises. The current provisions are little understood. For example, it is not fully understood that under current law any child older than 14 may enter any part of licensed premises without adult supervision. In law, a child as young as five can go into a pub or club unsupervised as long as they stay away from the bar area. Furthermore, it is perfectly legal under the present system for a seven-year-old to go unsupervised into a night club at 2 in the morning. We do not see unaccompanied children in clubs and pubs because they can enter only at the licence holder's discretion. Under the Bill, landlords and licensees will retain such discretion; furthermore, one of the Bill's chief aims is the protection of children from harm. Applicants for licences will have to set out clearly the steps by which they intend to secure that objective. It would be open to all the statutory consultees, as well as local residents—
      170
      including parents and teachers—to make representations on any application, or to call for a review of a licence.
      Following concerns expressed in the House and in the other place, we have built on the protections in the Bill to make them even stronger. I have held discussions with a range of the principal children's charities, including the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, the police, the Association of Directors of Social Services, the Children's Society and others. As a result of those discussions, it was strongly agreed that clear statements should be made in statutory guidance, setting out the levels of protection that should apply in different sorts of licensed premises, ranging from cinemas, restaurants and supermarkets to pubs and bars. We have also added the local area child protection committee to the list of responsible authorities that are notified of every licensing application. They can make representations and call for reviews, giving further voice at every stage of the licensing process to child protection issues. But we remain alive to concerns in that critical area of the Bill and will fully consider all further representations made during the final stages of its passage.
      As to music, many concerns have been expressed, but they do not have a basis in fact in respect either of the Bill's intention or of how its provisions will be applied. We have heard that new expensive conditions will be attached to licences and that performers will be burdened by the requirement to get a licence. We believe that quite the reverse is the case. Far from threatening traditional music, the Bill will enhance the opportunities for traditional folk music to thrive.
      In various ways we have gone a considerable way to address the concerns.
      Andrew Bennett: The Minister talks about traditional folk music, but what about traditional folk performance?
      Tessa Jowell: Precisely the same objective applies. Just as opportunities for folk music will be enlarged, so too will opportunities for the performance of folk music.
      We have accepted the spirit of an amendment made in the other place that will exempt incidental live music. We have also made it clear that entertainers who simply perform at unlicensed venues, and do no more in respect of entertainment, will not be committing an offence. We have exempted places of public religious worship and we have made it clear that church halls, village halls and other community buildings will be exempt from fees for regulated entertainment. Similarly, we have exempted schools and sixth form colleges when they use their premises for such purposes.
      We will also use the accompanying guidance to emphasise the requirements of the Bill that only necessary and proportionate conditions be attached to the licences. That point particularly will reassure those who fear the unreasonable and disproportionate requirements of local authorities. In addition, we have looked again at limits on temporary event notices and have increased the length and number of events permissible in any year. We have done that in response to concerns raised by a wide range of organisations and

      171
      groups, while at the same time balancing that liberalisation by ensuring adequate protection for the rights of local residents.
      Mr. Moss: The Secretary of State mentioned groups who have approached her Department about the temporary event notices. Many of those groups, especially Action with Communities in Rural England—ACRE—are still unhappy about the Government's amendment of the figure to 12. They want 18 to 24, so they are still very dissatisfied. Does the Secretary of State agree with that?
      Tessa Jowell: We will clearly listen to the remaining arguments as the Bill concludes its passage through the House.
      Another issue has been of some concern to hon. Members, and I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who is not in his place at present, who has pursued vigorously on behalf of his constituents concerns about cumulative effect, which is also known as saturation or density. Local authorities are rightly concerned that they should have adequate powers to take action to ensure that residents are properly protected from a preponderance of licensed premises of a particular type—chiefly, what are described as vertical drinking establishments. We have taken several steps to address those concerns. For instance, we have added the local authority planning committee to the list of expert bodies that will be able to scrutinise applications.
      We have made it clear in the accompanying statutory guidance that licensing authorities will be able to take the cumulative effect of a large number of licensed premises in a concentrated area into account where that is causing problems in relation to meeting the four licensing objectives. Licensing authorities will also be able to make it clear in their statements of licensing policies that for certain areas there would be a presumption against granting any more licences for premises of a particular type; but it is of course important that each case is considered individually.
      Detailed consultation on the statutory guidance that will accompany the Bill is continuing and we will of course have appropriate scrutiny of secondary legislation made under the Bill.
      We have had an enormous amount of debate about the Bill, in this House and in the other place, with the participation of the widest possible range of organisations with an interest in its provisions, both from the industry and from those representing the interests of local communities. Our objective has been to establish a modern framework for licensing that will support the country's flourishing leisure and hospitality industry while at the same time protecting the interests of citizens, consumers and communities. The Bill will deliver on both counts, and I commend it to the House.
      12.39 am
      Mr. John Whittingdale: The Bill was conceived with the best of intentions. It has been promoted throughout its passage as a deregulatory measure. Indeed, the Home Office sold
      172
      it to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on that basis, and one can almost imagine the glee with which the Home Office lobbed this hot potato at the DCMS saying, "Don't worry, it will be very popular." Indeed, all of us will remember the famous text message sent out by the Labour party to thousands of young voters just before the general election:
      "cldn't give a XXXX 4 last ordrs? vote Labour 4 xtra time".
      No doubt some of those young people took Labour at its word and did so vote. They, like many others, must now feel somewhat let down, because the Government have completely failed to deliver on their promise.
      Ever since that day it has become steadily more apparent that the Bill is anything but deregulatory. Indeed, every week has resulted in yet another area being exposed as falling victim to the regulatory and bureaucratic requirements that the Bill will impose. The Minister of State, Department of Transport—as the hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) has become—was candid enough at the outset to admit that it would have been much better if the Bill had been subjected to pre-legislative scrutiny, as the Communications Bill was. The Secretary of State agreed with that point.
      It has become steadily more apparent as the Bill has been subjected to examination by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Moss) and my colleagues in the Standing Committee that it is a complete mess from start to finish. One can only imagine the sigh of relief that the Minister must have given on learning that he would be moved from the DCMS to his new post, an appointment on which we warmly congratulate him. His pleasure can only have been tempered by the slight disappointment of discovering that he would still have to defend the Licensing Bill on Report. It is certain that trying to sort out the mess of our public transport system will seem a pushover after having dealt with the Bill.
      As we made clear on Second Reading, we accept the need for reform of our licensing laws. We support some elements of the Bill. We agree, for instance, with the need for greater flexibility in opening hours, and we accept the argument for doing away with the universal chucking-out time. We are less persuaded that the transfer of licensing responsibility from magistrates to local authorities is either necessary or sensible, and it is interesting that even the Local Government Association is beginning to see problems. In its latest briefing, it argues that
      "the Bill still presents a very poor deal for local authorities"
      and that "significant new burdens" will be imposed on authorities. It states:
      "without realistic fee levels there will obviously have to be a significant subsidy from the Council Tax".
      Even though we feel that the Government have failed to make the case for the transfer, we accept that they are determined to press ahead. We regret, therefore, that they have been unwilling to accept the stronger safeguards to protect the interests of local residents that we have advocated in our amendments, particularly in the measures advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field).
      The principle that there should be a separation of the licence governing the premises from which alcohol is sold from the personal licence issued to the individual to

      173
      permit him to serve or sell alcohol is also one that we support in general. That principle has, however, been completely undermined by the Government's insistence that an individual should be named on the premises licence as a designated premises supervisor. That provision destroys almost all the gains in simplicity and reduced bureaucracy that the Government claim to be trying to achieve.
      Indeed, I understand that even the police have conceded that they regard the measure as an unnecessary extra piece of bureaucracy.
      We also regret that the Government are unwilling to accept the establishment of a central licensing authority to administer the new system of personal licences. As a result, the Government continue to expect individual local authorities to remain responsible for the issue of licences to individuals who, many years ago, may have moved far away from the area. When we debated that proposition earlier, the Government argued that local authorities were already well used to issuing licences and that a new authority would not be sensible or cost-effective. In response, I draw the Secretary of State's attention to the view of the LGA that tracking the movement of individuals and of new criminal convictions would be more effectively administered through a national agency. The LGA says that the Lords amendment, to create a central authority, should remain. Indeed, I hope that their lordships will share that view when they reconsider the measure.
      We are disappointed that the common sense shown by their lordships in amending the Bill to prevent unaccompanied children aged under 14 from entering a pub or night club has not been accepted by the Government. I listened carefully to the comments of the Secretary of State in her Third Reading speech and I welcome her undertaking to consider that point further. Many people will find it extraordinary, however, that a Government who trumpet their interest in the welfare of children by creating a Minister for Children can overturn an amendment that would protect young children by requiring that they should be accompanied by an adult if they visit a pub.
      Tessa Jowell: Does the hon. Gentleman not accept that the amendment was criticised by a wide range of children's charities? They felt that it was too rigid that it did not make sufficient distinctions on the presence of children in different kinds of establishment and that it would thus not provide the appropriate degree of protection for children that is the Government's objective.
      Mr. Whittingdale: The principle of the amendment was widely supported by children's charities, but I agree that improvements can undoubtedly be made. I hope that discussions between the Government and their lordships will continue and that they will find an amendment that meets our objectives.
      The Government have got many aspects of the Bill wrong, but the provisions that caused the most problems and which most closely resemble a dog's breakfast are those on entertainments licensing. At every stage of the Bill, when objections were raised they were dismissed out of hand by Ministers as nothing but scaremongering, yet time and again Ministers were
      174
      forced to accept that they were wrong and had to propose new amendments to overcome specific weaknesses; for example, on the requirement that churches should be licensed for the performance of secular entertainment. The Government surrendered early on that issue. The removal of licence fees for schools and sixth-form colleges quickly followed. Since then, Ministers have repeatedly had to return with further amendments, even as late as this afternoon.
      Peter Bottomley: I wrote to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to ask about an event that my wife and I hold regularly, when 80 people pay about £10 for a glass wine and contribute to entertainment in our family room to raise money for a good cause, either the Church or the Tory party. I asked whether I should need a temporary entertainment licence, but I have received no response. I assume that, as the number is about 80 rather than 250, the answer will be yes, because the Government resisted the amendment. If that kind of public-spirited entertainment requires a licence, the Bill, in that detail, must be wrong.
      Mr. Whittingdale: My hon. Friend's example is typical of hundreds that are being presented by organisations throughout the country. They all believe that they will have to meet an additional tier of regulation and bureaucracy as a result of the Bill. The Minister has assured the House that the provisions will not cover some events, but the organisations that presented evidence to us had obtained professional legal advice in each case.
      Their advice shows very clearly that the Bill, as amended, will cover events of that kind. That is part of the problem. Examples, such as that cited by my hon. Friend, have been given repeatedly, and we have got into the most obscure debate, for instance, about whether or not a marquee with a wooden floor would be exempt from licensing, whereas a dance that took place inside a house with a wooden floor would require licensing. That is complete madness.
      Dr. Howells: Would the hon. Gentleman like to cite that debate?
      Mr. Whittingdale: We discussed such things in a debate on an amendment this evening, and the Historic Houses Association has given that exact example. [Interruption.] Well, earlier this evening, we debated an amendment, suggested by the Historic Houses Association, that was designed precisely to put right that kind of objection, but the problem has arisen because of the Government's decision to insist on a licensing requirement for all public performances of live music.
      All of us agree that the law, was arcane and unjust, but no one believed that the Government's response to the campaign to remove the two-in-a-bar rule would be not to abolish the licensing requirement, but to extend it to all public performances. No convincing explanation has been given about why live music poses risks and problems that broadcast entertainment, however loudly amplified, does not. No explanation has been given about why the system in Scotland, which has no requirement for entertainment licences, would not be

      175
      appropriate in England, too. It is hardly any wonder that musicians across the land, from morris dancers to metal bands, are united in opposing the Bill.
      This morning, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Cambridgeshire and I joined members of the Musicians Union in delivering an electronic petition, containing 110,000 signatures, to No. 10 in protest against the Bill. Those signatures were attached to the early-day motion that I tabled a few months ago. Indeed, I suspect that it is a record for an early-day motion to have 110,000 signatures associated with it.
      I draw the Minister's attention, once more, to the finding of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published on Friday, in which it said that there is a significant risk that the Bill is now incompatible with the European convention on human rights. Associated with the Bill is an assurance from the Secretary of State that, in her view, the provisions are compatible with the convention rights, but the Joint Committee now tells us that the Bill, as amended, will leave a patchwork of different licensing requirements, without a coherent rationale, calling in question the existence of a pressing social need for the restriction on freedom of expression through a licensing regime, so undermining the Government's claim that such a licensing regime is a justifiable interference with the right to freedom of expression under the European convention on human rights.
      The solution is very simple. If the Government were to accept the amendment passed in the House of Lords exempting performances attended by fewer than 250 people from needing a licence, almost all that opposition would melt away. I realise that the Government have so far been unwilling to do so, but I predict that the House will have to consider this matter again very soon, and I hope that, if the House of Lords insists on reinserting that amendment, the Government will listen and think again.
      The work done by the House of Lords on all the issues that I have mentioned led to a greatly improved Bill. For that reason, the Conservative party did not vote against the Bill on Second Reading. Sadly, nearly all the good work done in the House of Lords has been undone by the Government in Committee. The result is a Bill that is riddled with anomalies, that imposes more regulation rather than less and that will lead to the loss of thousands of venues at which it is currently possible to enjoy live music.
      The Bar Entertainment and Dance Association said:
      "Like almost every organisation involved with the development of the Licensing Bill, BEDA remains extremely concerned at the omissions, over elaborations and ill thought through proposals that remain within the legislation at this late stage."
      The Musicians Union, the English Folk Dance and Song Society and the Association of British Jazz Musicians wrote a joint letter, saying that the Bill
      "will be a disaster for the performing arts".
      The Government presented a bad Bill. It was improved by the House of Lords, but it has been made worse again by the Government. For that reason, I shall ask my hon. Friends to vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
      12.55 am
      Alan Simpson: There is a great deal to be commended and welcomed in the Bill. Its Achilles heel is not an excess of regulation but the absence of regulations that would make it specifically compatible with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998.
      I listened carefully to what the Secretary of State had to say about those who could make representations in respect of licence applications and the ability of local authority planning departments to make observations, but the Achilles heel was her concluding comment that every application will have to be judged on its merits. I attempted to table amendments that would have given local authorities a specific power to allow the police and licensing authority to reject applications when they reached saturation point, or when an application overwhelmed the police in terms of their ability to deliver on section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act. It is not that we did not reach those amendments to vote on them but that Ministers were unwilling to incorporate them into specific Government proposals that would have written them into the Bill.
      Dr. Howells: I do not know whether my hon. Friend has been present for these debates, but this subject has been debated more than any other of which I am aware. We have debated the whole business of cumulative effect, which he calls saturation. He has had ample opportunity to take part in those debates, but I am not aware that he did. We have given local residents, police and responsible bodies more opportunity in this Bill to object to licences than they have ever had before, and certainly more than they have currently. I should have thought that he would welcome that rather than resorting to this whinge—which is what it is—which undermines the effectiveness of our negotiations to ensure that what is in this Bill is communicated effectively to those who will form the licensing authorities.
      Alan Simpson: The Minister may dismiss my contribution as a whinge, but it is a whinge made and shared by the police, my local authority and many others. They do not believe that those powers are conferred on them within the framework of the Bill. A briefing produced for me by the police states that
      "the generally unrestricted nature of planning and the potential to have streets entirely full of licensed premises is just not workable "
      That was the basis of their fears about the extent to which we will deliver something unpoliceable that will not be about cultural diversity or creative excitement.
      Mr. Kevan Jones: I say respectfully to my hon. Friend that he clearly has not read the Bill, and neither has his local authority. It gives local authorities the power, in licensing policy, to reflect diversity and, for the first time ever, take into account strong objections from local people to the exact problems affecting them. For the first time, they will have a say, which will address the issue of cumulative effect.
      Alan Simpson: The grounds for objection in the Bill are on the basis of an individual assessment of applications, the capacity of the premises, the reputation of the applicant, the building standards and

      177
      door supervision. The police say that that does not give them the ability to say no to the straw that breaks the camel's back—something that changes the whole cultural character of what is going on. I am excited about what I currently enjoy in Nottingham, but the city centre management strategy is based on the fact that we have a city centre in which between 5,000 and 10,000 people live. Every Friday night, however, between 105,000 people, which is the estimate of the police, and 120,000 people, which is the estimate of the fire and ambulance services, come in and are part of the culture and dynamism of that city centre.
      The police tell me that their ability to police the area is largely dependent on the diversity of clubs, bars, restaurants, wine bars and pubs, most of which are small or medium-sized. They cannot cope with the prospect that applications for huge watering holes serving 3,000 people cannot be turned down. The big breweries are turning up the pressure on local authorities, and authorities are being told by district auditors that if they appeal, and thus risk wasting council tax payers' money, they might be individually surcharged for breaching their fiduciary duty. If a local licensing authority will have the power to refuse an application on the basis of capacity or because the scale of applications would be incompatible with its city centre management strategy, why have the Government resisted the incorporation of such a provision in the Bill?
      My fear is that there will not be freedom but a free-for-all, that there will not be a culture of celebration but a culture of violence, and that we will not promote vibrant growth and cultural diversity but crime and disorder. I do not want us to squander the opportunities and advantages offered by other parts of the Bill by failing to allow local areas to say no when they think that they have reached their carrying capacity. Provisions on strategic plans in the Crime and Disorder Act are not specifically spelt out in the Bill. Given that the police say that they fear that the Bill will not give them necessary powers, the House should think carefully before supporting it.
      1.2 am
      Nick Harvey: When the Bill was brought before Parliament, there was a general view across the political spectrum that legislation on such matters was long overdue. Indeed, there was general good will toward the prospect of legislation. The Government headlined the Bill by saying that it would allow more relaxed drinking hours and perhaps 24-hour drinking in some areas. That measure appeared to be popular and they must have believed that they were on to a winner.
      Although the Bill's aim was to be simple and deregulatory, it has ended up being surprisingly complex. Each time a problem has arisen, the solution found has added to the Bill's complexity and produced further problems. Solutions to those problems have created a Bill that has become increasingly cumbersome. I agree that it would have benefited in no small way from pre-legislative scrutiny.
      The former Minister for Tourism, Film and Broadcasting handled the Bill's passage with panache and deftness—we congratulate him on his promotion but he will be sorely missed as he moves to his new job—but publicans, musicians, performers and residents
      178
      remain significantly unhappy. I acknowledge that some of the campaigning outside the House has inflated concerns to an extent that is not entirely proportionate and that the perception of several aspects of the Bill is worse than the reality.
      Publicans fear possible costs. They fear not the licence fee but the cost of meeting conditions that they believe that they will have to fulfil to be granted licences. Not unreasonably, their perception is that the new system will be more bureaucratic than the one that it replaces. They think that they will have to engage advisers and consultants to help them to put together complex operating plans and that there is more far more red tape inherent in the new system than in previous systems.
      If publicans want to change their operating schedule or the names of their designated premises supervisors, the system is more cumbersome and complicated than it used to be. In addition to the concerns of individual publicans, we know that chains of pubs are unhappy that they cannot register their interest in designated premises. We may also come to regret that shortcoming.
      The biggest controversy surrounds live performances and entertainment licensing. Despite everything that the Government and the Minister have said, live performers still believe that fewer venues will be available for live music and performance after the Bill is enacted, and their fears may be well founded. The hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said that we can all accept the shortcomings of the two-in-a-bar rule in the previous set-up, but that there is a desperate need for a de minimis provision. The Government's biggest mistake is not finding an alternative de minimis provision to replace the two-in-a-bar rule.
      Although the figure of 250 that was suggested in the other place as constituting a small event is on the high side, I sincerely believe that something along those lines is necessary to avoid small entertainments becoming encumbered by a new licensing regime. It is hard to resist the conclusion that that will reduce the number of live performances. Aside from those considerations, it appears that performers such as morris dancers who move around and perform at a variety of venues in quick succession will be caught up in many more licensing provisions than they were in the past.
      The third interest group is the residents who will understandably be aggrieved that residential amenity has not been included in the Bill alongside the other licensing objectives as something that licensing authorities have to take into account when they make their decisions. As we heard, they will also be aggrieved that undertakings from the old regime are not to be carried forward. The ability of a ward councillor to make representations was something that we—myself included—were wrong to exclude when we sensibly wrote out the provision for MPs and MEPs to be able to do so.
      On other concerns, we heard that the Joint Committee on Human Rights thinks that there are possible breaches of human rights. I am equally uncomfortable about the statutory guidance. Although it will need parliamentary approval at the outset, it will not need it when the Government want to change it.

      179
      I have concluded that, regrettably, the Government have taken a sledgehammer to crack a nut. Much of the Minister's response to specific points came down to existing law already covering various aspects but not, in truth, being implemented. We might have done better to set about implementing existing laws before seeking new legislation. People will look at the Bill and wonder why the Government concluded, for example, that Punch and Judy shows need to be licensed for public entertainment. They will want to know what motivated them to include that in legislation in 2003. Is it because Punch and Judy is sexist, cruel to crocodiles or shows a lack of respect for law and order? Whatever it is, it is an example of the Government putting too much in the Bill and attempting to do too much. With a heavy heart, I conclude that it should not be given a Third Reading.
      1.9 am
      Mr. Kevan Jones: I welcome the Bill, which brings our licensing laws up to date and puts them in a modern setting, clearing away centuries of anachronistic and outdated licensing laws. It fulfils a pledge in our 2001 manifesto to update our licensing laws, and gets the balance right between clamping down on antisocial behaviour and disorder and allowing freedoms for law-abiding citizens to enjoy the leisure activity of drinking alcohol.
      I warmly welcome the opportunity for local people to have a say for the first time ever in the way in which the licensing system operates. I disagree with the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson), who clearly does not understand the Bill and has not followed its passage through the House. It will for the first time give local licensing authorities a chance to set licensing policy. It will promote a more civilised approach to alcohol and introduce laws that will promote good behaviour among most law-abiding citizens.
      I enjoyed serving on the Standing Committee, and shall miss sparring with the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner). However, many of my hon. Friends and I have made up our mind not to volunteer to serve on another Standing Committee if he is serving on it.
      1.10 am
      Peter Bottomley: It is clear that the Government should amend the programme motion to allow an extra hour for Third Reading, as many Members, from all parties, would like to contribute to our debate.
      May I repeat—[Interruption.] If the Minister could keep quiet and listen, the House would probably welcome that. A point that I made about the Bill in a letter to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport has still not been answered. I would be happy to give way to the Secretary of State or the Minister, who dealt with the Bill in Committee, so that they could answer the question that I asked in an earlier intervention. Would someone in my situation need a temporary
      180
      entertainment licence to do something that disturbs nobody and raises money for a good cause? If so, what is the fee?
      Dr. Howells: If the hon. Gentleman charges people an admission fee to attend a fund-raising event for the Conservative party in his house and pay for the drink, he will need a licence.
      Peter Bottomley: The Minister has come clean. If a church sells the tickets and asks if it can use my room, does it need an entertainment licence, or do I? Where is the fee in the regulations?
      Dr. Howells: I do not want to get up.
      Peter Bottomley: The Minister says openly that he does not want to get up. I rest my case. The Government have not defended the temporary entertainment licence as they should have done, and they are a disgrace.
      1.12 am
      Ross Cranston: The Bill will modernise and rationalise an arcane body of law, and is therefore to be welcomed. It has a number of ambitious aims to change the culture of drinking and address problems of crime and disorder. The Minister mentioned Hogarth's Gin lane. There is a culture of binge drinking in this country. One survey of young people found that 56 per cent. of 15 to 16-year-olds—
      It being six and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the programme motion, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [this day].
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 227, Noes 121.

      Division No. 238]

      [1:13 am

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Browne, Desmond

      Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

      Bryant, Chris

      Alexander, Douglas

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Allen, Graham

      Burden, Richard

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cairns, David

      Austin, John

      Campbell, Alan (Tynermouth)

      Barraon, rh Kevin

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Caplin, Ivor

      Beard, Nigel

      Caton, Martin

      Benn, Hilary

      Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Challen, Colin

      Berry, Roger

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Best, Harold

      Chaytor, David

      Betts, Clive

      Clapham, Michael

      Blackman, Liz

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, rh Charles (Norwich S)

      Blizzard, Bob

      Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Borrow, David

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Brennan, Kevin

      Cohen, Harry

      Brown, rh Nicholas (Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Coleman, Iain

      Connarty, Michael

      Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

      Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

      181

      Corston, Jean

      Kidney, David

      Cousins, Jim

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Cranston, Ross

      King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Crausby, David

      Cummings, John

      Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

      Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      David, Wayne

      Lammy, David

      Davidson, Ian

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Lazarowicz, Mark

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Leslie, Christopher

      Denham, rh John

      Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Dismore, Andrew

      Love, Andrew

      Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

      Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      McCafferty, Chris

      Drew, David (Stroud)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      MacDougall, John

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      McFall John

      Efford, Clive

      McIsaac, Shona

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      McKenna, Rosemary

      Ennis Jeff (Barnsley E)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Farrelly, Paul

      McNamara, Kevin

      Fisher, Mark

      McWalter, Tony

      Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

      McWilliam, John

      Follett, Barbara

      Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Michael, rh Alun

      Foster, Michael (Worcester)

      Michael rh Alun

      Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

      Miller, Andrew

      Mole, Chris

      Foulkes, rh George

      Morley, Elliot

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Mullin, Chris

      Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

      Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

      Gardiner Barry

      Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

      Gerrard Neil

      Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Olner, Bill

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Organ, Diana

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

      Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

      Owen, Albert

      Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Hanson, David

      Perham, Linda

      Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

      Picking, Anne

      Healey, John

      Pickthall, Colin

      Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

      Pike, Peter (Burnley)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Plaskitt, James

      Heppell, John

      Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

      Heyes, David

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Hill, Keith (Streatham)

      Hope, Phil (Corby)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Purnell, James

      Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

      Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

      Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

      Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Illsley, Eric

      Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Ruane, Chris

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Jenkins, Brian

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

      Sawford, Phil

      Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Sheridan, Jim

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

      Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

      Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

      Keen, Alan (Feltham)

      Keen, Ann (Brentford)

      Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Stevenson, George

      182

      Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Watts, David

      White, Brian

      Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Williams, Betty (Conwy)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

      Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Woolas, Phil

      Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Tipping, Paddy

      Wray, James (Glasgow Baillieston)

      Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

      Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

      Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

      Truswell, Paul

      Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

      Wright, David (Telford)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Vernon Coaker and

      Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

      Jim Fitzpatrick

      NOES

      Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

      Hendry, Charles

      Allan, Richard

      Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

      Amess, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Johnson, Boris (Henley)

      Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

      Key, Robert (Salisbury)

      Bacon, Richard

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Barker, Gregory

      Lamb, Norman

      Baron, John (Billericay)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Bercow, John

      Lilley, rh Peter

      Blunt, Crispin

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Boswell, Tim

      Loughton, Tim

      Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

      Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

      Brady, Graham

      McDonnell, John

      Brazier, Julian

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Malins, Humfrey

      Burnett, John

      Maude, rh Francis

      Burns, Simon

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Burt, Alistair

      May, Mrs Theresa

      Butterfill, John

      Mitchell, Andrew (Sutton Coldfield)

      Calton, Mrs Patsy

      Chope, Christopher

      Moss, Malcolm

      Collins, Tim

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Norman, Archie

      Curry, rh David

      O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

      Osborne, George (Tatton)

      Paice, James

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Paterson, Owen

      Dodds, Nigel

      Pickles, Eric

      Doughty, Sue

      Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

      Evans, Nigel

      Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Redwood, rh John

      Fallon, Michael

      Rendel, David

      Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

      Robathan, Andrew

      Robertson, Hugh (Faversham & M-Kent)

      Flook, Adrian

      Forth, rh Eric

      Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

      Garnier, Edward

      Rosindell, Andrew

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      Ruffley, David

      Gidley, Sandra

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

      Sanders, Adrian

      Goodman, Paul

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Gray, James (N Wilts)

      Selous, Andrew

      Grayling, Chris

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Grieve, Dominic

      Simmonds, Mark

      Gummer, rh John

      Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

      Hammond, Philip

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

      Harvey, Nick

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hayes, John (S Holland)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Heald, Oliver

      Stunell, Andrew

      183

      Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

      Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

      Taylor, John (Solihull)

      Williams, Roger (Brecon)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Wilshire, David

      Thurso, John

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Viggers, Peter

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Walter, Robert

      Young, rh Sir George

      Waterson, Nigel

      Watkinson, Angela

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Whittingdale, John

      Mr. Robert Syms and

      Wiggin, Bill

      Mr. Mark Francois

      Question accordingly agreed to.

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

      RACE RELATIONS
      That the draft Race Relations Act 1976 (Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 8th May, be approved.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

      RACE RELATIONS
      That the draft Race Relations Act 1976 (Seamen Recruited Abroad) Order 2003, which was laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): I think the Ayes have it.
      Hon. Members: No.
      Division deferred till Wednesday 18 June, pursuant to Orders [28 June 2001 and 29 October 2002].
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6)(Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

      SOCIAL SECURITY
      That the draft State Pension Credit (Decisions and Appeals—Amendment) Regulations 2003, which were laid before this House on 14th May, be approved.—[Derek Twigg]
      Question agreed to.

      EUROPEAN UNION DOCUMENTS
      Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 119(9) (European Standing Committees),
      BROAD ECONOMIC POLICY GUIDELINES
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 8475/03, Commission Recommendation on the Broad Guidelines of the Economic Policies of the Member States and the Community (for the 2003–05 period); and supports the Government's welcome for the publication of the Recommendation and the operational context it provides for addressing the key economic policy issues and priorities over the next three years, in line with the European Union's strategic goal agreed at the Lisbon European Council.

      QUALITY OF BATHING WATER
      That this House takes note of European Union Document No. 13789/02, draft Directive concerning the quality of bathing water; and supports the Government's objective that effective, practical and proportionate measures are applied across the European Union to monitor and regulate the quality of bathing water.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Question agreed to.

      DELEGATED LEGISLATION
      Ordered,
      That the following Statutory Instruments be referred to Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation: the Education (Additional Secondary School Proposals) Regulations 2003, (S.I., 2003, No. 1200), the Education (Outturn Statements) (England) Regulations 2003, (S.I., 2003, No. 1153), the Education (School Organisation Plans) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1201) and the Education (School Organisation Proposals) (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2003 (S.I., 2003, No. 1229).—[Derek Twigg.]

      JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
      Motion made,
      That Standing Order No. 152B (Human Rights) (Joint Committee)) be amended, in paragraph (5), by leaving out the words 'shall be three, except that for the purposes of taking evidence, the quorum'.—[Derek Twigg.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE CONVENTION
      Motion made,
      That the Order [12 June 2002] relating to the Standing Committee on the Convention be amended in paragraph (4)(b), by leaving out the words 'or be counted in the quorum'.—Derek Twigg.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

Gas Services (Bassetlaw)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Derek Twigg]
1.26 am
John Mann: I rise to raise an issue that has shocked and surprised me more than any other in the two years for which I have represented the constituency of Bassetlaw—that is, access to gas services. I wish first to set the scene in relation to the problem. A 90-year-old pensioner opens the door of her bungalow—the same door that she has opened for many decades. As a widow, she must face the freezing cold this winter, but worse is the risk of falling on the ice. It is black ice. It is always black ice, because of the spillage from the coal that she shovels up. A coal bunker is situated in her garden, as it always has been. Hot ashes are emptied three times a day. A fire is lit in the early morning and maintained through each winter's day. It is a traditional way of life, but there is no romanticism when she slips and falls; no glory when she is too ill to get out of bed; no thermostat to set; and, sadly, no longer a husband to assist in the carrying of the coal. There is no oil piped into the new boiler and there are no solar panels. There is the door and the coal bunker, and between them the four seasons.
That is the situation for several of the 92 pensioner bungalows on the Bracebridge estate in my constituency. They were all built around the time of the second world war, and none of them has access to gas. They are not remote homesteads in the back of beyond that have been forgotten, or where the price of taking the mains has been regarded as prohibitive—they are in the industrial centre of town. The estate is surrounded on all sides by new build from the 1950s, the 1960s, the 1970s and the 1980s, all with gas; Properties that were built 100 years ago stand on the opposite side of the street. All have gas.
I want the Government to consider two key issues. The first is the difficulty and cost of getting connected to gas, and the second is whether competition for gas supply is working. The Gas Act 1986 places a duty on the director general of gas supply to exercise his functions in such a way as to ensure that all reasonable demands for gas are met, provided that that can be done economically. The Act, as amended, is the statutory basis for arrangements that cover connection to the gas main. Section 10 stipulates that
"a public gas supplier shall, upon being required to do so by the owner or occupier, give and continue to give a supply of gas to any premises which … are situated within 25 yards from a … main".
There is no right to a connection for properties beyond that limit.
Public gas suppliers are allowed to charge people who require a gas supply for the expenses of laying the main. Ofgem recognised the difficulties of some communities in obtaining a connection to the gas network. It recently extended the time for recovery of charges from five years to 20 years so that those benefiting from the gas supply at a later date will contribute to the cost of the connection.
186
However, the changes do not solve the problems in Bassetlaw. In a debate on 5 December 2001, the then Minister said:
"Communities and individuals are no longer forced to use Transco, but may access one of the dozen independent gas transporters … As a result of competition, 70 to 75 per cent. of connections to new housing developments are now carried out by companies other than Transco"
That refers to new housing developments. However, in my constituency, the problem is old housing. Of the 13 gas transporters that are licensed under section 7 of the Gas Act 1986 to convey gas through pipelines to premises, only one—ES Pipelines Ltd.—expressed to Energywatch any desire to connect the areas in Bassetlaw that are not connected. That followed an Energywatch intervention to ask whether transporters were prepared to do that.
A range of legislation—most recently, the Utilities Act 2000—means that providing connections is fully competitive. Again, I quote the former Minister, who said:
"My hon. Friend espouses the values of competition. As I am, among other things, the Minister for competition, I must encourage him to get behind the notion that competition benefits consumers and has done so tremendously. I am sure that competition is the way forward."—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 5 December 2001; Vol. 376, c. 119–20WH.]
Of course, competition is a good thing in energy if it drives down prices and provides a better deal for the customer. However, if it is not economically viable for one company to extend the pipeline to cater for excluded communities, it will not be economically viable for any of them. What plans does the Department have to deal with that anomaly?
Gas companies are required to respond only when it is economical for them to do so. Let me cite prices for Bassetlaw that Transco recently gave me. In Blyth, the cost is £4,012 per household for approximately 50 households. In Shireoaks, the cost is £2,413 per household, and in Bracebridge, the initial price that was quoted to Mr. Needle, who was the first of the 92 to ask for gas, was approximately £10,500. I believe that Transco is charging over the odds, citing the regulatory restrictions. Its competitors, with one exception, are not interested in quoting. Yet Ofgem says that it envisaged that prices would continue to fall.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: I have listened carefully to the way in which my hon. Friend represents his constituents. Does he know that Transco has a long history of overcharging in what was supposed to be a new competitive environment? Indeed, a couple of years ago, Ofgem had to devise an order to the Gas Act 1986, forcing Transco to comply, be fully competitive and not use anti-competitive practices. My hon. Friend's description of the overcharging of his constituents is a good example of the general way in which Transco treats its customers.
John Mann: My hon. Friend is very knowledgeable in these matters; I know that he has pursued them with vigour in this Parliament and the previous one. The point that he makes is pertinent to this debate.
Ofgem has advised me that there are independent engineering companies that are also able to install pipes. On 22 May, it advised me that information about

187
independent contractors engaged in laying gas infrastructure was in Yellow Pages and the Thomson directories. That does not seem to be an appropriate way for pensioners such as those in the three areas in my constituency that I have outlined to access the gas supply that the vast majority of people already have.
It gets worse. The 10-m rule was put out to consultation in April 2003 in a document entitled "Competition in one-off gas connections", which suggested price increase options or the abolition of the 10-m rule and of section 10(2)(a) of the Gas Act, as amended. In other words, this would affect the ability of some properties within 10 m of the main to be connected, supposedly for free, but in fact not for free at all. According to Ofgem, the 10-m rule principally affects lower-value domestic connections, yet Ofgem simultaneously states that disadvantaged households will not lose out disproportionately from its abolition. It strikes me that George Orwell must have inspired the writing of that document.
On investigation, it was discovered that 16 Bracebridge properties—out of a total of 92—could be connected under the 10-m rule, but not for free. The charge would be £312, which is a standard Transco charge. It is an arbitrary charge, because it is the same connection price as that charged for the infill, for which Mr. Needle was quoted £10,500. To summarise: one house could be connected "for free"—or, rather, for £312—while the semi-detached house next door would have to pay double or treble that amount for an identical service to an identical house. If those properties had been connected 20 years ago, it would have been cheap; now, it is expensive. Companies fight to work on new developments paid for by developers—that is where we see the competition—but there is no competition for doing the infills. I repeat that only two companies will even consider these three areas, and one of them—Transco—has no choice but to do so.
Who are the losers? They are the pensioners in mining communities who have never shifted to gas. The reason that they have not done so is partly an empathy with the industry in which they worked, and partly the concessionary coal that was available. So, when the rest of the country was shifting to gas 20 or 30 years ago, these isolated pockets of pensioners remained. What would the impact be if they did shift to gas? There would be a saving of 2.4 tonnes of CO2 emissions per household. Electric storage heater costs averaging £993 would be reduced to an average of £671 with gas.
Mr. Roger Williams: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's views on old coal mining communities, but there are other people who do not have access to mains gas and the economies associated with it, who often have to get their energy from liquefied petroleum gas. The cost per unit of LPG is much higher than that of mains gas. Such people also suffer from not being able to get an economic connection to the mains gas supply.
John Mann: I take the hon. Gentleman's point; he makes a useful contribution to the debate.
The scale of the problem is illustrated by the fact that 600,000 households would be taken out of fuel poverty if they had proper access to gas. Almost every one of
188
those is a pensioner household. There are particular problems in coal mining areas because of the historic legacy that I have described, and because of their weddedness—which was quite right at the time—to the financial incentive of concessionary coal. These pensioners are the oldest people in my constituency. The 90-year-old whom I mentioned is an actual example, but there are plenty of those aged between 80 and 90 years—and some who are over 90—in these bungalows. The vast majority now wish to have the choice, and the right to gas.
I would like six matters to be looked at by the Department. The first is the situation of mining community pensioners who are disproportionately denied the right to choose gas if they wish to do so because of the mess of regulation. Secondly, I would like the extension of the warm zones initiative to Bassetlaw to be seen as a potential way forward. Thirdly, I would like more local authority pilots to be considered to tackle historic infill problems, because, to take one of the three examples, the vast majority of the relevant properties on the Bracebridge estate are council owned, so a potential solution is the council front-loading the cost of connection and allowing the pensioners, through their rents, to pay back over a much longer period.
Fourthly, I would like consideration to be given to a fuel poverty policy that links to the new energy policy—put forward by the Government and agreed by Parliament—which prioritises gas as the key energy source for the future. Fifthly, there should be an end to the regulator's pretence that competition is working and clarification of the fact that competition should be in gas supply, not in the building and creation of the infrastructure. Sixthly, I would like to see agreement that the policy of expanding the historic infill gas infrastructure is clearly failing and needs reviewing by the Department.
1.41 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Nigel Griffiths): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) on securing this debate on an important subject. At his invitation, I have visited his constituency twice in the fairly recent past, and I well know the high regard in which his constituents hold him. He is clearly a Member with his finger on the pulse. I also welcome the brief but thoughtful comments by my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) and the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams). Clearly, this matter affects a wider area than Bassetlaw.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw specifically highlighted the problem that residents of the Bracebridge area of his constituency have with the network. As he pointed out, Bracebridge has no gas supply, although communities in the surrounding area and close to it—I have visited the area—have a supply. That, of course, can be galling for people. I understand that earlier this year Transco was approached to provide an estimate for connecting the 92 properties in his community; I think that he has visited each one. The company quoted more than £900 per property, if I am not mistaken. That is triple the sum that my hon. Friend said that others in his constituency would have to pay. This is a matter of considerable concern to those without access to a gas supply at the lower price.

189
My hon. Friend and other Members will be pleased that the design and demonstration unit intends to issue shortly a list of the top 100 communities without gas that are in most need and could be connected at the least cost. That is a refinement of earlier research by Transco's affordable warmth programme, which ranked communities outside the mains gas network on the basis of the index of multiple deprivation. The research indicated that almost 9,000 clusters of communities of more than 50 households had no access to a gas supply, and 4,600 of those were within 2 km of the gas main. I understand that Bracebridge was on that list.
Clearly, there has to be a sensible way to decide which communities should have the work carried out, to ensure that priority is given to the competing demands from communities across the country. I will certainly ensure that my hon. Friend's concerns are brought to the attention of the new unit so that they can be taken into account.
My hon. Friend made a strong bid for the establishment of a warm zone in Bassetlaw. I believe that warm zones can have a significant impact on the reduction of fuel poverty in large areas by focusing closely on communities in those areas, and can address a range of needs by a range of methods. As my hon. Friend will know, my hon. Friend the Minister for Energy and Construction has supported the first five zones set up in the pilot round that began in 2001. The results of the pilots are currently being evaluated. During that process my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw will have entered into discussions with his local authority, which may want to consider what contribution it could make to the establishment of a warm zone and to discuss its interests with the industry or the warm zone company. I hope that when the results of the pilots are known he will facilitate that discussion, and inform the Minister for Energy of the outcome.
My hon. Friend mentioned a number of other issues that had caused his constituents understandable concern. Transco is statutorily required to provide a quotation for a connection, but the regulator has determined that the quotation must reflect the actual cost. If Transco did not quote on that basis, it would lay itself open to legal challenges both from competitors and from Ofgem, on the basis of anti-competitive behaviour.
John Mann: Earlier the Minister quoted a Transco price of approximately £900. That, of course, would require a significant proportion of households to agree to be part of the infill. I could approach the 16 properties that are within 10 m of the gas main, and Transco would be obliged to pay for all 16 to be connected at a price of £312. That, however, would mean the building of eight or nine tunnels beneath main roads, at considerable expense. Is there not a lack of logic in the current system? I could be encouraging people to cause far more money to be spent by adopting the piecemeal option,
190
rather than using the money effectively. It would cost more to have those 16 properties connected if they were connected one at a time—although they would be charged £312—than it would to get all the properties connected.
Nigel Griffiths: I understand that my hon. Friend had an extensive discussion about that with Transco representatives when he met them last Friday to put his points forcefully. As he says, a far higher price has been determined by the mechanism that Ofgem, the regulator, applies to properties that are further away. I will ensure that my hon. Friend's views, and those of Transco, are transmitted to the regulator, who must justify that approach.
My hon. Friend has drawn attention again to the problem of tackling the larger number of local connections, which can cause a great deal of disturbance as well as a great deal of cost. He mentioned fuel poverty earlier, and we take that issue seriously. It is wrong that senior citizens, especially those who are most vulnerable because of their advanced age, have no access to the cheapest and most practical form of fuel.
Mr. Roger Williams: This is an important debate for my constituency, which has some rural park home estates. Many of the people living on them are pensioners on limited incomes, but they are forced to access some of the most expensive forms of energy, including electricity and liquid petroleum gas. They have little real hope of gaining access to mains gas, which would be the cheapest form of energy and the best way to eliminate their fuel poverty.
Nigel Griffiths: Clearly, the discrepancies in the price that people pay for energy go to the heart of this Adjournment debate. I made it clear that the problem is not confined to Bassetlaw, although my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw deserves the credit for securing the debate to highlight the issues. He has made several pertinent points, and I know that both the Minister for Energy and the regulator will want to be made aware of them. I can give an undertaking to my hon. Friend and to the House that we will make the Minister for Energy and the regulator aware of my hon. Friend's concerns, which are shared throughout the House. We want to find the best way of ensuring that discrepancies in access to, and choice of, energy are minimised. Whenever practical, people should have a real and genuine choice. As my hon. Friend has made clear, that does not apply to 90 or so households in his constituency—nor, I am sure, to others.
I thank my hon. Friend once again for the concise way in which he expressed his pertinent points. I assure him that his concerns will be listened to carefully.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Two o'clock.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list the average life expectancy in each year since 1999 for(a) women and (b) men in Afghanistan. [119617]

  Hilary Benn
  The almost continuous conflict in Afghanistan over the last 25 years means that reliable health and population data are hard to come by and where available need to be treated with much caution.

  The World Bank estimates that life expectancy in Afghanistan was 40 in 1980, 42 in 1990 and 43 in 2000. It is generally thought that life expectancy is very similar for men and women.

  Agricultural Subsidies
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the relationship between agricultural subsidies, export guarantees and the development of impoverished African nations. [119191]

  Hilary Benn
  The benefits to developing countries from the Doha 'Development' Round will depend on the final outcome at the end of the negotiations in 2005. A beneficial outcome for developing countries, including African countries, in the agriculture negotiations would need to address both domestic support and export guarantees. Reductions in currently high levels of trade-distorting support are necessary to address overproduction in the developed world and the swamping of world commodity markets, both of which are of interest to developing countries. Under export guarantees, more explicit rules on the terms of use of export credits and food aid, as well as reductions in export subsidies are needed to address the issue of dumping which is currently harming developing countries' local production and trade.

  The UK is committed to ensuring real reductions in OECD agricultural subsidies, as well as to making progress in other areas of concern not only to African developing countries. These include improving market access for agricultural products and establishing fair rules for special and differential treatment to safeguard food security and rural development in Africa.

  Appointments
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the people appointed to ad hoc posts within her Department bearing the titles of advocate, tsar, adviser, champion and comparable titles since May 1997; what their job title is or was; what their role is or was; whether they 2W
  were or are being paid; what the total cost of each such person was in each financial year, including expenses and benefits; what the expected cost of each such person is in 2003–04; to whom they are accountable; and if she will make a statement. [112467]

  Hilary Benn
  The former Secretary of State for International Development, Clare Short appointed the following Special Advisers after May 1997, all were paid appointments: Jessica Crowe, Daniel Harris, David Mepham, Dee Sullivan, Susannah Cox and Ruth Driscoll. No more than two advisers were in post at any one time. All of the appointees listed were accountable to Ministers for their decisions and actions. Under Exemption 12 of the code of Practice on Access to Government Information details of individual salaries are not disclosed in order to protect the privacy of the individuals concerned. The new Secretary of State for International Development, Baroness Amos has not yet appointed any special advisers.

  Commodities Markets
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what steps the Government are taking to alleviate the effect of the downturn in international commodities markets on(a) developing country producers and (b) the environment, with particular regard to (i) coffee, (ii) cocoa and (iii) cotton. [119008]

  Hilary Benn
  Price fluctuations are a feature of many primary agricultural commodity markets, including those for coffee, cocoa and cotton. This instability can have negative implications in producer countries at both national level (e.g. in terms of foreign exchange earnings, government revenues and the ability to service debt etc.), and at household level, even in countries where a degree of diversification has been achieved. Any negative effects on the natural and physical environment, such as inappropriate farming practices, cannot be disassociated from the livelihood challenges which a downturn in commodity markets creates for those dependent on the production, marketing and trade in these products.

  Many of the world's poorest countries, particularly those in Africa, remain dependent on these three commodities. We are committed to helping these countries reduce their dependence on these commodities and increase their resilience in the face of unstable world prices. The UK Government, through its development programme and other efforts at international level, are seeking to expand trade opportunities, although existing trade barriers (including tariff escalation) and developed country agricultural policies are major impediments to this. The UK is working to secure reform of international trade rules in general and to reduce the impact of protectionist regimes on developing countries such as the Common Agricultural Policy. In addition, there is scope for creating a more favourable domestic environment within commodity dependent countries themselves. This is necessary to generate broader more diverse economic growth that will provide the means to reduce vulnerability to shocks, such as falling prices. The UK provides support to a variety of activities in this area.

  General Agreement on Trade in Services
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of State Department for International Development if he will make a statement regarding the GATS negotiations; and what assessment he has made of the benefits of full trade liberalisation as a means to achieving development goals. [118912]

  Hilary Benn
  The GATS negotiations are still in their request-offer stage. The EU has agreed an initial market-access offer and has received market access requests from a number of developing countries.

  DFID is co-operating with the World Bank and UNCTAD to carry out a comprehensive programme of work aimed at understanding the impact of service liberalisation across countries and sectors. We hope this will help developing countries to understand the potential impact of liberalising their own service sectors during the GATS negotiations.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Minister of State Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the impact of service liberalisation. [118913]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is co-operating with the World Bank and UNCTAD to carry out a comprehensive programme of work aimed at understanding the impact of service liberalisation across countries and sectors. We hope this will help developing countries to understand the potential impact of liberalising their own service sectors during the GATS negotiations.

  Iraq
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Minister of State Department for International Development what estimates he has received from(a) UNMAS and (b) other sources on the number of (i) airborne and (ii) ground launched cluster munitions used, and on the number of unexploded bomblets located at sites where cluster munitions were used in Iraq. [118616]

  Hilary Benn
  I refer the hon. Member to the response I gave him on 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 771W.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make it his policy that official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118871]

  Hilary Benn
  It is DFID policy to use English spelling in all official communications and to use plain English, in accordance with Cabinet Office guidance on the Handling of Ministerial and Other Correspondence.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what progress has been made in his Department and non-departmental public bodies on implementing the 4W
  requirements of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000; and if he will publish the results of the monitoring required by the Act. [117619]

  Hilary Benn
  In accordance with the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, DFID published a Race Equality Scheme in May 2002. This reiterates DFID's commitment to promoting race equality and sets out how the department plans to meet its obligations under the new Act, both as a service provider and as an employer.

  Due to the international focus of its work, DFID has only a few functions which provide services to the UK public. The Department has set up systems to assess, review and monitor its policies and practices including as an employer so as to ensure compliance with the Act.

  The results of this monitoring will be published annually, with the first report expected in the last quarter of 2003. It will be placed on the DFID website and be made available in hard copy on request.

  DFID has three non-departmental public bodies. Systems are in place to monitor their recruitment policies and practices. The principles of equal opportunity and diversity apply within the appointments process at all stages, and care is taken not to discriminate on the grounds of gender, race, age, disability, religion, marital status, sexual orientation or community background. All appointments to these non-departmental public bodies are made on merit.

  Widows
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what financial assistance the Department is providing to projects to help widows in(a) Afghanistan, (b) Iraq, (c) Nigeria and (d) Angola. [118648]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID supports a number of projects in Afghanistan, Iraq and Nigeria to assist women; these are detailed as follows. DFID also provides unearmarked core funding to UNIFEM (United Nations Development Fund for Women), which will be —3.6 million in 2003. This supports a partnership set out in an Institutional Strategy Paper agreed with UNIFEM in 1999. Women's human rights are central to all UNIFEM's programmes.

  In Afghanistan DFID's assistance strategy targets vulnerable people, particularly women, who are in need of direct assistance. The World Food Programme, which DFID has funded as part of the strategy, runs employment projects solely for vulnerable women. These projects, such as bakery co-operatives and small farms, are run in both urban and rural areas. DFID provided —4.7 million to WFP in 2002–03.

  This year DFID is also providing support to other projects that are targeted at vulnerable women; —200,000 to a micro-finance initiative run in Afghanistan by the Bangladeshi Rural Advancement Committee, and —1 million to an Aga Khan Network project for improving livelihood opportunities in Badakhshan province. This assistance is targeted at vulnerable women in general, rather than specifically at widows.

  5W
  In Iraq, DFID has provided —819,000 to the NGO 4RS since 1999 for their work with widows and vulnerable households headed by women. Their work includes income generation projects in the Kirkuk area of northern Iraq and in particular the Anfal widows. In addition DFID has provided —105,673 to 4RS for their work to assist displaced unsupported women in northern Iraq during the recent conflict.

  In Nigeria, DFID has provided —5,000 during the last six months to train 1,000 widows through the Access to Justice programme operating in Enugu state. A further 1,000 widows will receive training during the coming six months at a cost of —3,700.

  In Angola, DFID has no projects directly aimed at helping widows, but our —8 million Angola country programme focuses on reducing poverty for all Angolans and we are increasingly working with the Government of Angola to help it meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assistance the Department is providing(a) directly, (b) through its partner organisations and (c) through NGOs to include widows in the future development of institutions and local government in (i) Afghanistan, (ii) Iraq, (iii) Nigeria and (iv) Angola. [118649]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID's longer-term development work on institutional and governmental reform and capacity building in Afghanistan focuses on reform of the institutions for the benefit of all poor or disadvantaged people, especially women, but not specific groups such as widows.

  The Government is committed to including women in the reconstruction of Iraq, in line with UN Resolution 1325. DFID and other Departments are talking to a range of women's groups within and outside Iraq to ensure women are well represented in planning and reconstruction issues at all levels, and that they play a full role in shaping the new Iraq.

  In Nigeria the Access to Justice programme training for widows is aimed at empowering widows to challenge those who persist in harmful and illegal practices associated with widowhood.

  In Angola DFID's country programme focuses on improving governance and reducing poverty for all Angolans.

  World Trade Conference, Cancun
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment he has made of the possible benefits for developing countries resulting from the Fifth World Trade Organisation Ministerial Conference in Cancun in September. [119003]

  Hilary Benn
  The 5th World Trade Organisation (WTO) Ministerial Conference in Cancun this September will take stock of progress on delivering the `development' agenda for the "current" round of multilateral trade negotiations launched in Doha in November 2001. WTO Ministers will be required to take decisions on issues of critical importance to developing 6W
  countries such as reform of global agricultural trade and what special treatment different developing countries should receive.

  The benefits of the Doha round for developing countries will depend on the final outcome at the scheduled conclusion of the negotiations on 1 January 2005. It is widely acknowledge that multilateral trade reform can have significant benefits for developing countries. For example, the World Bank estimates that eliminating all barriers to trade in goods would generate an extra US$250 billion–-US$620 billion in global income, up to half of which would go to developing countries. In terms of poverty reduction, this could lift over 300 million people out of poverty by 2015.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Postal Service
  David Winnick
  To ask the Chairman of the Administration Committee what progress the Committee has made with examining the question of the time limit for collecting hon. Members' post for delivery the following day. [119542]

  Mrs. Roe
  Royal Mail is carrying out an internal audit on the possibility of resuming later collections of parliamentary mail. This assessment is due to be completed shortly and my Committee expects to receive a response from Royal Mail later this month.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Environmental Liability Insurance
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the placing on businesses of a requirement for compulsory environmental liability insurance; and if she will make a statement [118067]

  Alun Michael
  The Government seeks an Environmental Liability Directive that delivers clear environmental benefits and is equitable, proportionate, clear, insurable and easy to implement. In Council negotiations we have made it clear that we will not support proposals that would damage business competitiveness while lacking a clear focus on achieving environmental gain.

  The assessment of the implications of compulsory financial security was carried out by my Department in consultation with business generally, with the insurance industry, and with other relevant Government Departments. It revealed that the cost to UK businesses of a compulsory insurance requirement could range from —130 million to —1.8 billion per annum. These costs would far outweigh the environmental benefits of the Directive, as evaluated in the Department's Extended Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (COM(02)17). These factors point strongly against such a requirement. The Government's policy therefore is not to support compulsory financial security.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many staff have been employed in the Ministerial Correspondence Unit of the Department in each of the last two years. [115870]

  Alun Michael
  When Defra was created in June 2001 the Ministerial Correspondence Unit consisted of eight permanent members of staff. More staff were appointed in the following months to deal with the vastly increased volume of letters received following the creation of the new Department and on the foot and mouth disease outbreak. Staff rose to a peak of 26 in May 2002 and consisted of a combination of permanent and temporary staff. The Unit currently consists of 15 members of staff, eight of whom are permanent and seven of whom are employed on casual contracts.

  Departmental Agriculture Staff
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will estimate the number of whole-time equivalent staff dedicated to agriculture in her Department. [114272]

  Alun Michael
  The number of permanent Defra staff (on a full-time basis at 1 April 2003) in a relevant work units in Defra is as follows:

  Number

  Agricultural Resources and Better Regulation Divison

  25

  Animal Health and Welfare Directorate General

  668

  Conservation Management Division

  37

  Food Industry and Crops Directorate

  356

  Land Management Improvement Division

  23

  Organics, Forestry and Industrial Crops Division

  30

  Rural Development Service

  1,358

  Science Directorate

  105

  State Veterinary Service

  1,254

  Sustainable Agriculture and Livestock Products Directorate

  115

  Some of these staff have responsibilities that do not relate exclusively to agriculture, but that could be quantified only at disproportionate cost.

  Disease Risk Insurance
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement of her Department's policy towards compulsory disease risk insurance for farmers. [118327]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government has no current plans to introduce a policy of compulsory disease risk insurance for farmers. However, the Government is preparing to consult stakeholders on proposals for an animal disease levy. We hope to launch this consultation later this summer.

  Farms
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the viability and number of farm business tenancies. [118962]

  Alun Michael
  The Government believes that the tenanted sector has an important role to play in developing a sustainable and diverse future for the 8W
  farming industry. Many Farm Business Tenancies are too short to provide the security a tenant needs to develop and diversify their businesses. That is why the Government asked the Tenancy Reform Industry Group to put forward proposals for tenancy reform. The Tenancy Reform Industry Group has reached an industry consensus on these issues and its report to Government was published on 3 June. We have welcomed the report and will be considering the Tenancy Reform Industry Group recommendations carefully.

  The June Agricultural Census shows that there were just over 12,300 Farm Business Tenancies in England at June 2002. The recently published results of the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers' Annual Tenanted Farms Survey for 2002 shows that in England and Wales some 18,200 hectares of previously un-let land have been let on Farm Business Tenancies. After taking account of losses of let land during the survey period there has been a net gain to the tenanted sector of some 10,500 hectares. The Central Association of Agricultural Valuers' survey also shows that the average length of a Farm Business Tenancy is just under 4 years and that some 80 per cent. of lets involve bare land.

  Local Food Initiatives
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on help available to those wishing to develop local food chains or food links, with particular reference to Gloucestershire. [118894]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 June 2003]: We recognise the benefits that local food can bring and are keen to encourage the development of a sustainable local food sector. Funding under the England Rural Development Programme (ERDP) is available to support a range of local food initiatives. For example, we have made money available under the Rural Enterprise Scheme of the ERDP for a three year project to establish a Gloucestershire Farmers' Market Group which will help in the setting up of new markets, create a website and provide a one-stop advice service for local producers in the county. We will continue to deploy our various funding schemes to encourage a flourishing local food sector.

  This activity complements measures at a local level carried out by regionally based organisations, such as the work, supported by the Government Office for the South West, to draw up an integrated food policy for Gloucestershire under the Gloucestershire Food Vision initiative.

  Foot and Mouth
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when foot and mouth disease simulation exercises have taken place in each animal health divisional office area in each of the last five years. [118573]

  Mr. Morley
  Foot and mouth disease exercises have taken place in Animal Health Division Offices as shown in the table. Exercises focused on other diseases have also taken place over the same period. In addition the readiness of these offices to deal with an outbreak of
  9W
  exotic disease was developed and tested during the outbreak of classical swine fever in 2000 and foot and mouth disease in 2001 and in dealing with suspect cases over the whole period.

  England

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Bury St. Edmunds

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Carlisle

  —

  —

  —

  —

  3

  —

  Chelmsford

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Exeter

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Gloucester

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Leeds

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  —

  Leicester

  3

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  Lincoln

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Newcastle

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  2

  —

  Preston

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Reading

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Reigate

  1

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Stafford

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Taunton

  —

  —

  —

  1

  1

  —

  Truro

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Worcester

  1

  1

  —

  —

  2

  4

  Scotland

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Ayr

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Galashiels

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Inverness

  1

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Inverurie

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Perth

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Wales

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Caernarvon

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Cardiff

  —

  1

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Carmarthen

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  9

  7

  6

  3

  15

  14

  1 Newcastle AHDO was not established until August 2002

  Illegal Imports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 4 June 2003, ref 116075, what quantities of animal and plant products she estimates have been illegally imported into the UK over the last three years for which figures are available; what products were involved; how many(a) prosecutions were brought and (b) cautions were issued; and what the resulting penalties were. [118580]

  Mr. Morley
  The Veterinary Laboratories Agency published a risk assessment report on 25 March 2003. This estimated the amount of illegal meat imported annually, on average, to be 7,500 tonnes, with 90 percent. certainty that the amount of illegal meat imported will range from 2,800 tonnes to 17,500 tonnes per year. Copies of the report have been placed in the House Libraries.

  A huge range of products are seized including a wide variety of meats, fish, sausages, honey, plants and seeds. Examples of meat products seized can be found in the risk assessment at appendix 2.

  Figures for prosecutions prior to the transfer of all anti-smuggling controls to HM Customs and Excise on 11 April 2003, were not held centrally. We are aware of one successful prosecution brought by Crawley borough council in July 2002, which resulted in a —150 fine and —100 costs. In September 2001, HM Customs and Excise brought a prosecution for the illegal importation of bushmeat derived from endangered species. The offender was found not guilty of these offences, but was however found guilty of an offence under Products of
  10W
  Animal Origin (Third Country Imports) (England) Regulations. The Corporation of London Port Health Authority issued six cautions in October 2002.

  HM Customs and Excise, who took responsibility for anti smuggling controls on meat from 11 April 2003, will prosecute in the most serious cases.

  Live Animal Exports
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that animals which are unfit for transport are not exported from the UK; and if she will make a statement. [118654]

  Mr. Morley
  Health and welfare rules for the intra-Community movement of live animals require animals to be fit for the intended journey in accordance with the provisions of directive 91/628/EEC on the protection of animals during transport. An official veterinary surgeon must inspect animals before transport and must certify that they are healthy and fit for the intended journey. In addition, there may be checks by inspectors at the time of loading onto the vehicle or at the port of departure. Information about checks on sheep and pigs exported for fattening or slaughter are available on the Defra website (www.defra.gov.uk).

  Mersey Forest Project
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of the contribution made by the Mersey Forest Project to(a) attracting new businesses and tourists to the region and (b) encouraging more people to participate in outdoor activities; [118821]

  (2) what contribution has been made by the Mersey Forest Project towards reclaiming derelict land. [118822]

  Alun Michael
  The Mersey Forest project is one of 12 Community Forests set up under the Countryside Agency's Community Forest Programme. The North West Regional Economic Strategy identifies the Mersey Forest, and other forestry projects in the Region, as factors that are helping to create the right conditions for inward investment, regeneration, tourist development and overall quality of life. In order to evaluate the programme the Agency has commissioned a range of independent research projects. These projects have identified a number of contributions that the Mersey Forest has made, or is making.

  The research has shown that the Mersey Forest and the Red Rose Forest (around Manchester) are identified, among other projects, as having a role to play in helping to reposition the region's image for attracting businesses and tourists to the region. The Mersey Forest project has helped develop an integrated approach to the development of rural businesses and the management of the landscape in which they work. In order to encourage more people to participate in outdoor activities, the Mersey Forest has created a network and support structure for the Mersey Forest Friends groups, which are self-managing and are given support to undertake the sustainable management of their local woodlands. In addition, the Mersey Forest's "Schools Ground Development" programme was established to create wooded play areas surrounding

  11W
  schools. Events to encourage outdoor activities include nature walks, moonlight walks, forest survival, volunteer days and play schemes. I understand that forest based activities have increased by 600 per cent. in the last 10 years.

  The research indicates that the Mersey and Red Rose Forests have been involved in pioneering work on closed landfill sites, establishing new methodologies for assessing sites and determining their suitability for woodland. I understand that 12 per cent. of the derelict land (4,000 hectares) within the Mersey Forest area has been reclaimed, of which some 65 hectares of woodland was planted on damaged or disturbed ground in 2001. The Mersey Forest (in association with the Red Rose Forest, the Forestry Commission, the North West Development Agency and the Environment Agency) is using the Capital Modernisation Fund to deliver community woodland on derelict, under utilised and neglected land.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what arrangements she intends to put in place for the continued funding of the Mersey Forest Project after 2005; and if she will make a statement. [118823]

  Alun Michael
  The 12 Community Forests (including the Mersey Forest) set up under Community Forests Programme (administered by the Countryside Agency) were envisaged as pilot projects. Through this Programme the Countryside Agency planned to test out the idea that "community forestry" could provide signficant benefits for the local community. Partners in many other areas could apply the lessons learnt and promote community forestry projects without national support, while the continued existence of the twelve pilot forests would stand or fall on the basis of the value placed on them by organisations in their locality and region.

  The commitment to support the pilot Community Forest projects was for a period of 10 years from 1995. I am considering the current position in the light of the development of regional agendas and strategies, including Regional Forestry Frameworks that are being brought together by the Forestry Commission. These frameworks will be owned by Government Offices and Regional Development Agencies. It appears likely that the Regional Forestry Frameworks will be the main vehicle for securing regional ownership for a mainstream role for community forestry in Government Office and Regional Development Agency strategies and future business plans.

  On-farm Storage
  Mr. Swire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what regulations there are on the on-farm storage of foodstuffs near to animal by-products. [118163]

  Mr. Morley
  The Animal By-Products Order 1999 (as amended) imposes strict controls that require animal by-products to be treated or disposed of safely and without undue delay. It also makes it an offence (other livestock feed controls notwithstanding) to allow ruminant animals, pigs or poultry to have access to any unrendered animal by-products. Similar controls will 12W
  apply under the new EU Animal By-Products Regulation. Under separate food hygiene legislation, farmers are required to protect foodstuffs stored on farm from contamination.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what progress has been made on completing a pay audit in her 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 she will publish the results of such an audit. [117439]

  Alun Michael
  In its response to the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Task Force report, "Just Pay", the Government committed all Departments and agencies to review their pay systems by April 2003 and prepare action plans to close any equal pay gaps.

  The position in Defra and its agencies is as follows:

  Defra

  Defra has undertaken an Equal Pay Review in line with the guidance from the Cabinet Office. This has included the Pesticides Safety Directorate and Veterinary Medicines Directorate, for which the core Department has pay remit and negotiating responsibility.

  The Defra Equal Pay Review covered pay related issues in terms of gender, ethnicity and disability. A draft action plan was submitted to the Cabinet Office by the deadline of 30 April 2003. Defra senior management are considering the review's conclusions and the ways in which the action plan can be implemented. This will include liaison with the Cabinet Office. Once these discussions have been concluded, a copy of the Defra action plan will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  AGENCIES

  Central Science Laboratory

  The Central Science Laboratory commenced an Equal Pay Audit in autumn 2002, to be carried out in line with Cabinet Office guidance. A joint review team was established with the trades union side and a CSL Equal Pay Policy has been agreed. An organisational action plan has been completed in line with Cabinet Office guidance issued in March 2003 and was submitted to Cabinet Office in May 2003. CSL will continue to liaise with the trades unions as part of an on-going review of equal pay within the agency.

  Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science

  An Equal Pay Review has been carried out in the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science, and a draft report is being considered by senior management.

  Rural Payments Agency

  The Rural Payments Agency has completed out an Equal Pay Review in accordance with the Cabinet Office guidance. The Review's conclusions are being considered by senior management and the trade unions. The RPA will submit an action plan to the Cabinet Office shortly.
  13W
  Veterinary Laboratories Agency

  The Veterinary Laboratory Agency pay equality audit has been completed and an action plan sent to the Cabinet Office. Any action necessary will be considered within the pay negotiations for 2003.

  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES

  Non-departmental public bodies are not required to undertake an Equal Pay Review by April 2003, although several have done so.

  "Pub is the Hub"
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much funding was(a) available and (b) spent on "Pub is the Hub" schemes in each of the last four years. [119149]

  Alun Michael
  There is not a specific "Pub is the Hub" scheme. A good practice guide of that title was published in December 2001 to inspire rural pubs to diversify their services. However, the Vital Villages Community Service Grant, administered by the Countryside Agency on behalf of Defra, can be used to fund "Pub is the Hub" style projects. Levels of funding for this type of project since April 2001, when Vital Villages was launched, were —9,048 for 2001–02 and —14,262 for 2002–03. In this financial year, —25,000 has been spent so far.

  Volatile Organic Compounds
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent assessment she has made of the environmental impact arising from(a) paints containing a high amount of volatile solvents, (b) adhesives and sealants marketed for use in the home, (c) laminate, (d) vinyl, (e) PVC plastic and (f) rubber flooring; and if she will make a statement. [119089]

  Alun Michael
  I assume that this question is about the environmental impact in terms of emissions of non-methane volatile organic compounds from making use of the products listed.

  The National Atmospheric Emissions Inventory gives the total of emissions to atmosphere in the UK of non-methane volatile organic solvents in the year 2000 as 1676 kilotonnes. Separate research conducted for us by ENTEC suggests that of this total about 50 kilotonnes of emissions were from decorative paints, and less than 1 kilotonne from the domestic use of adhesives and sealants. Emissions from the other products listed were not identified separately.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent research she has conducted into the environmental impact of spray furniture polish; and if she will make a statement. [119072]

  Alun Michael
  I assume this question concerns the emission of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) a common constituent of aerosol products and a known contributor to the formation of tropospheric ozone which has been widely researched, and which is known to cause damage to ecosystems and to human health, primarily to the respiratory system.
  14W
  Since 1990 overall UK emissions of VOCs have fallen by approximately 44 per cent. to 1514 kilotonnes in 2001. Under the National Emission Ceilings Directive we are committed to further reductions to 1200 kilotonnes by 2010.

  Estimated emissions of VOCs from aerosol household products makes up about 0.5 per cent. of total UK VOC emissions. This amounts to approximately eight kilotonnes out of the 2001 total of 1514 kilotonnes. Spray furniture polish constitutes a relatively small proportion of the total aerosol household products category.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what recent discussions she has had and representations she has received on take-over proposals in the supermarket industry, and the ramifications for(a) producers and (b) consumers. [118113]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra Ministers have been in recent correspondence with the competition authorities about this subject and have also touched upon the matter in the course of discussions on other subjects with various industry stakeholders.

  Responsibility for Government policy on competition issues is a matter for the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  West African Fisheries
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what measures she is taking to encourage a sustainable EU policy towards the exploitation of West African fish stocks through third party agreements. [117812]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The UK regularly urges the Commission to ensure that third country fisheries agreements provide value for money, promote environmentally sustainable fishing and are coherent with Community development policy.

TRANSPORT

  Ports
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to make using British ports more attractive to merchant shipping. [118275]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Our policy aims for ports are to promote competitiveness, high national safety standards and best environmental practice. 'Modern Ports', published in November 2000, set out a range of specific initiatives designed to help the ports industry rise to challenges it faces, and we are making good progress on these. We are also working with European partners and the UK industry to promote and develop effective, efficient and sustainable coastal and short sea shipping.
  15W
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial assistance has been given to the British ports sector since 1997 to improve services; and if he will make a statement on proposals to increase the number of large ports in the UK. [118280]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In general we believe that port developments should not need public subsidy, but each case is judged on its merits and if there is evidence of market failure and the project offers worthwhile economic and/or environmental benefits, it may qualify for an element of public funding. For example, since 1997 the Government has awarded three freight grants worth a total of over —15 million to three UK ports to assist with capital projects designed to remove freight from road and onto to water. Information on other possible sources of public funding given to ports is not held centrally. Proposals to develop new ports are primarily matters for the private sector companies involved, subject to obtaining the statutory consents required.

  Departmental Website
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what actions he has taken or is taking to ensure that the websites of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are accessible to partially sighted and blind people; and if he will make a statement. [117332]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department's website (www.dft.gov.uk) follows the Office of the e-Envoy's Guidelines for UK Government websites to provide an accessible web site for partially sighted and blind people.

  My Department will soon be replacing its website. The new site has been developed based on the Office of the e-Envoy's Guidelines but we have also designed it to take into consideration the way screen readers work by conducting rigorous screen reader testing using JAWS for Windows software. It has improved accessibility for partially sighted and blind people through the use of the access key system throughout the site on the most commonly used links. It has been rigorously tested so that the HTML conforms to the World Wide Web Consortium's Web Accessibility Initiative's AA standard. In addition, the site has been tested using the BOBBY analysing application, a well-known test of accessibility.

  Agencies and non-departmental bodies are encouraged to follow the Government Guidelines.

  Air Transport
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many responses had been received as of 31 May in response to(a) the consultation document, "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation" and (b) each of the regional consultation documents on the "Future Development of Air Transport" in the United Kingdom, broken down by region. [119318]

  Mr. Jamieson
  To date we have received over 140,000 responses to the consultation from across the UK. A breakdown by region is set out in the following table.16W

  Region

  NOP Responses

  E-mails and letters received

  Scotland

  1,080

  520

  South East

  25,100

  41,600

  Midlands

  22,390

  44,200

  North of England

  3,550

  890

  South West

  1,460

  970

  Wales

  130

  280

  Northern Ireland

  170

  120

  Total

  53,880

  88,580

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many copies of the(a) main document and (b) summary of the consultation documents (i) "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: A National Consultation", (ii) "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: North of England", (iii) "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South West", (iv) "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Midlands", (v) "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: Wales" and (vi) "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East" had been (A) issued in hard copy and (B) downloaded from the website, by 31 May; [119319]

  (2) how many copies of the (a) main document and (b) summary of the (i) national and (ii) regional consultation documents on "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" have been issued in hard copy as a result of each exhibition which has taken place to promote the consultation, as of 31 May. [119320]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following summary and main consultation documents have been distributed since the start of the consultation to 31 May.

  Main documents

  Summary documents

  Hardcopy

  Downloaded

  Hardcopy

  Downloaded

  Midlands

  37,210

  11,330

  46,850

  12,680

  Northern Ireland

  4,680

  4,160

  9,520

  3,180

  North of England

  13,490

  15,720

  48,990

  8,810

  Scotland

  6,230

  12,460

  12,200

  19,680

  South East

  57,970

  96,800

  198,940

  89,490

  South West

  5,850

  9,870

  14,430

  9,860

  Wales

  4,510

  3,330

  5,980

  2,720

  Note:

  All Figures rounded to the nearest 10

  The number of documents distributed at exhibitions is not available, but the figures in the table are inclusive of them.

  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost to his Department has been of(a) the exhibitions promoting the consultation documents on the "Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" and (b) the printing costs relating to the publication of the consultation documents, as of 31 May. [119321]

  Mr. Jamieson
  As part of "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom" consultation, 18 public exhibitions were held on the major airport development options. The cost of these was —1.1 million—this includes the cost of the two recent exhibitions on the Gatwick airport options. The cost of printing the
  17W
  consultation documents covering the whole of the UK, including the South East second edition paper, was —940,000.

  Airline Security
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent progress has been made in implementing the Wheeler Report on airline security, with specific reference to the concept of sky marshals. [118345]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A substantial programme of work is in hand to implement Sir John Wheeler's recommendations on airport security. These ranged widely across measures to strengthen security on the ground, to address through more co-ordinated assessments any potential vulnerabilities arising from serious and organised crime at airports, and to improve the overall strategic direction of airport security. Useful progress is being made in all of these areas.

  Sir John's review was confined to security at airports rather than in the air. The Government announced on 19 December last year the development of a capability to place covert, specially trained armed police officers aboard UK civil aircraft, should that be warranted.

  Airport Consultation (Midlands)
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide guidance to under 16-year-old consultees wishing to respond to the airport consultation process for the midlands; and for what reason the lowest age category exhibited on the questionnaire is 16 to 24 years. [119055]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We welcome views from all consultees, irrespective of age, and many people under 16 have already responded to the consultation in a variety of ways, including letters and petitions. There is no age eligibility criterion for completing the airports' questionnaire and all views will be given serious consideration in the analysis of responses.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the actions his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are taking to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; whether he has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if he will make a statement. [117705]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The responsibility for taking action to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos Work Regulations 2002 are delegated to the managers of the individual Property Centres within the Department. The action taken will depend on the nature of the property centres' occupancy of the buildings, whether or not asbestos has been found, where it is located and its quantity.

  The Department's Headquarters building in London contains no asbestos but some has been identified in a number of buildings on the Agencies' estate. Where asbestos has been found its existence has been entered onto asbestos registers and specialist consultants or contractors handle its management or removal.
  18W
  Information about estimates for the cost of compliance and asbestos in non-departmental public bodies is not available and to obtain this would involve disproportionate cost.

  Warsaw Convention
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport which airlines flying into and out of the UK have(a) fully waived, (b) partially waived and (c) not waived their rights under the Warsaw Convention to
  (i) limit compensation payable in respect of passengers injured or killed while travelling with them and (ii) refused to pay compensation for psychiatric injury; and if he will make a statement. [118696]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are approximately 113 non-EEA airlines regularly operating services to and from the UK. Of these the following are known to have waived certain rights under the Warsaw Convention.

  Aeroflot Russian Airlines, Air Canada, Air China, Air Mauritius, Air New Zealand, American Airlines, American Trans Air, Asiana Airlines, Avianca, Cathay Pacific, Continental Airlines, Croatia Airlines, CSA—Czech Airlines, Cubana de Aviaciõn, Cyprus Airways, Delta Airlines, Egyptair, Estonian Air, Eurocypria Airlines, Kenya Airways, Korean Air Lines, Lithuanian Airlines, LOT Polish Airlines, Maley Hungarian Airlines, Northwest Airlines, Qantas Airlines, Royal Air Maroc, Royal Brunei Airlines, Singapore Airlines, South African Airways, Thai Airways International, Turkish Airlines, United Airlines, UPS Airlines, US Airways, Varig SA.

  These airlines have waived their rights in relation to compensation payable in respect of passengers injured or killed while travelling with them. The Warsaw Convention makes no specific provision for compensation for psychiatric injury. In some jurisdictions, including the UK, compensation for psychiatric injury is possible when it is associated with physical injury.

  Community air carriers and airlines based in Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein and Switzerland are subject to the provisions of Regulation 2027–97, which removes all limits of liability for passenger death and injury.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress of reform of the Athens Convention. [118697]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A Diplomatic Conference at the International Maritime Organization in October 2002, considered a draft amendment to the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage By Sea, 1974. A draft instrument was duly adopted as the Athens Convention Relating to the Carriage of Passengers and Their Luggage By Sea, 2002. When in force, following ratification by 10 States, the 2002 Convention will significantly increase the amount of compensation available for death or personal injury claims to fare-paying passengers travelling on international services by sea. It will also make it easier for claimants to access compensation through a requirement on ship owners to maintain insurance cover, and by means of a right of direct action against the ship owner's insurer. The UK actively participated
  19W
  in the Conference and welcomes its outcome. The Government is currently exploring legislative options for implementation of the Convention in the UK.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the targets he has set to improve energy efficiency within his Department; and what steps are being taken to achieve these targets. [119534]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I would refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the then Under Secretary for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 581W.

  Mail Transportation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what discussions he has had with(a) Royal Mail and (b) EWS concerning the transport of mail by rail. [118687]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right. hon. Friend has spoken to EWS and others on several occasions in relation to rail freight.

  Marine Accident and Investigation Branch
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many Marine Accident and Investigation Branch reports have been published in each year since 1998. [119344]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Since 1998 the numbers of Marine Accident Investigation Branch reports that have been published are:

  Number

  1998

  5

  1999

  27

  2000

  40

  2001

  42

  2002

  40

  2003

  115

  1 to 12 June

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to release the Marine Accident and Investigation Branch report into the sinking of the Solway Harvester. [119345]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A summary report of the Marine Accident Investigation Branch's investigation of the loss of the Solway Harvester with seven lives was published on 13 June 2003. The full report will follow the conclusion of criminal legal proceedings in the Isle of Man.

  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met Isle of Man police to discuss the timing of the Marine Accident and Investigation Branch report into the sinking of the Solway Harvester. [119346]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Secretary of State for Transport has had no meetings with the Isle of Man police in connection with the Marine Accident Investigation Branch's report of the loss of the Solway Harvester.

  Mersey Tunnels
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when in each of the last 10 years he received the accounts of income and expenditure of the Mersey tunnels. [118465]

  Mr. Jamieson
  These details are provided in Merseytravel's Revenue Outturn forms which are submitted annually to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (and in previous years to its predecessor departments).

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the extent to which central Government funds given to the Mersey Tunnels have been spent on(a) the Mersey Ferries and (b) other purposes in the last five years. [119499]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government do not provide funding direct to the Mersey Tunnels. Central Government funding is provided to Merseytravel as the passenger transport authority for Merseyside.

  Mobile Phones
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research he has commissioned into the number of deaths caused by drivers using mobile phones in England in each of the last five years. [118992]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 3 March 2003,Official Report, column 800W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Leyton and Wanstead (Harry Cohen).

  Multi-modal Studies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of(a) the expected travel time savings for (i) public transport users and (ii) motorists and (b) the expected effect upon carbon dioxide emissions resulting from the implementation of each of the multi-modal study recommendations announced in his statement to the House of 10 December 2002, Official Report, columns 155–58; and if he will make a statement. [119136]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Assessments of travel time savings and carbon dioxide impacts for the multi-modal studies, on which we announced our conclusions in December 2002, were made by each study for the strategy as a whole rather than for individual schemes. Full assessments of travel time savings and carbon dioxide impacts of individual schemes will be produced by the relevant delivery agency as scheme proposals are developed in more detail. This work is currently in hand for the road schemes being taken forward by the Highways Agency.

  Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will place in the Library the advice he has received from(a) the Countryside Agency, (b) the Environment Agency, (c) English Heritage and (d) English Nature on the multi-modal studies that have (a) concluded and (b) are shortly to conclude. [119138]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The statutory environmental bodies have provided advice to study teams at various stages during the multi-modal study process. In addition, at the request of my Department, they have provided
  21W
  comments on the recommendations of the multi-modal studies which have issued final reports. Under part 2, paragraph 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, this advice is confidential.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on his decisions regarding the outstanding multi-modal studies. [119139]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering the final report and recommendations from a number of multi-modal studies, together with the views of the respective regional planning bodies. We will make an announcement in due course.

  National Air Traffic Services
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received from airline companies about National Air Traffic Services' performance; and if he will make a statement. [118729]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Ministers have received no recent representations from airline companies about National Air Traffic Services' performance. NATS is a private sector company and I would expect any complaints to be made directly to its management or to the Civil Aviation Authority, its regulator.

  Number Plate Cloning
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport further to his answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 594W, what discussions he has had with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency concerning the detection and prosecution of motorists who clone licence plates. [118961]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency has clear procedures in place to deal with instances where vehicle cloning is suspected. Agency Intelligence officers carry out initial investigations to establish whether there are in fact two vehicles displaying the same registration mark. Information is then passed to the police for further action where appropriate.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make it his policy that official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118869]

  Mr. Jamieson
  It is the Department's policy to use UK rather than American spelling of English words. Where we employ specialist proof readers, we direct them to use the Oxford English Dictionary as their reference. The spell check facility on our IT systems is set to the UK English dictionary. The Department also publishes guidance for staff on drafting in plain English.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he plans to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in his Department. [117448]
  22W
  Mr. Jamieson
  In my Department there is no partnership agreement. However, in the case of the Department's collective Agencies, DVLA operate a 'partnership agreement' with the Trade Unions.

  Pensioners (Free Travel)
  Mr. Andrew Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what progress has been made on reducing travel costs for pensioners. [117861]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I would refer the hon. Member to my answer of 23 January 2003 Official Report, columns 508–09W. This Government has guaranteed that older people (over age 60) and disabled people are entitled to a free bus pass allowing half-fare travel on local buses, as a minimum. That is better than anything else provided previously. We have also recently introduced a half-fare for older people (over age 60) and disabled people on many scheduled coach services, in return for the operators of those services receiving grant from my Department.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [117469]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport is committed to valuing diversity and promoting equality. As a new Department, we published our first Race Equality Scheme—in agreement with the Commission for Racial Equality—on 31 March 2003. The Scheme will run for two years to bring it into line with those of other Departments. The Scheme covers the activities of the Department and its Executive Agencies as an employer as well as a policy maker and service provider. It also includes the non- departmental public bodies for which the Department is responsible.

  The Scheme has built on the results of extensive research, which the Department has carried out to identify the specific transport needs of people from different ethnic and faith communities.

  The Scheme includes a Race Equality Action Plan, which lists the key activities the Department will undertake through the two-year period of the Scheme. We will monitor, evaluate and consult on progress against these activities. We will review our progress and publish our findings. Each of the six Executive Agencies will develop their own Race Equality Action Plans by October 2003.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he plans to review the future of the Stranraer to Glasgow rail link south of Girvan. [118338]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local rail services in Scotland, including those from Stranraer to Glasgow, are a devolved matter for the Scottish Executive.
  23W
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to review the case for a mainline railway station at Cairnryan. [118340]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Local rail services in Scotland and consideration of the case for a mainline railway station at Cairnryan are devolved matters.

  Road Building
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Civil Engineering Contractors' Association about new road building projects. [119480]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I am not aware of any formal representations from this Association but my right hon. Friend the then Minister of State for Transport met them in January of this year to discuss the 10-year plan for transport and the outcomes of the multi-modal studies.

  The Highways Agency regularly meets with the Association at a local level to discuss procurement issues and the current programme of work on the trunk road network.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimates he has made of the level of Government spending needed to complete the road network consisting of the A6 bypass, Poynton bypass, and Manchester Eastern Link Route West compatible with the South East Manchester Multi Modal Study for each of the next eight years. [118470]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The recommendations of the South East Manchester multi-modal study were accepted in March 2002 and the local authorities were invited to continue the detailed development of the proposed road schemes at a reduced scale than those remitted to the study. It will be for the local authorities to determine the priority and timetable to implement the schemes.

  Road Safety
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government have to introduce a speed hierarchy for rural roads; and if he will make a statement. [119926]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Following the publication of the Rural Road Hierarchy report in November 2001 we are progressing work to improve safety across our rural road network. This includes the development of a framework to assess what speeds are appropriate together with surveys of what speeds are actually being driven on rural roads. This will feed into other work including a review of the guidance on setting speed limits towards the end of the year.

  South Coast Multi-modal Study
  Mr. Michael Jabez Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the south coast multi-modal study report. [119597]
  24W
  Mr. Jamieson
  We are currently considering the final report and recommendations from a number of multi-modal studies, including the south coast corridor multi-modal study, together with the views of the respective regional planning bodies. We expect to be in a position to make an announcement before the summer recess.

  Speed Cameras
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many speed cameras were in use in each of the last five years broken down by(a) fixed and (b) mobile cameras and by police authority. [118559]

  Mr. Jamieson
  That information is not held centrally.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment is made(a) of the environmental impact and (b) against sustainable development criteria of bids for (i) grants and (ii) contracts awarded by his Department; who makes such an assessment; and whether these assessments are published. [119536]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 3 June 2003,Official Report, column 165W.

  Transport (North Staffordshire)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with(a) Advantage West Midland and (b) the Government Office for the West Midlands on transport provision in North Staffordshire. [119154]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In response to the MidMan multi-modal study (MMS) and the draft Regional Planning Guidance (RPG) for the West Midlands, Staffordshire county council and Stoke-on-Trent city council are initiating a comprehensive transport study for North Staffordshire. This study will develop the specific transport measures, which will be required to respond to the challenges raised by the local regeneration strategy, the low demand housing pathfinder, and the urban renaissance which is at the heart of RPG.

  Advantage West Midlands (AWM), Government Office for the West Midlands (GOWM), and the Highways Agency (HA) are working with the local authorities and will be supporting the study financially and with specialist expertise. It is expected that the results of the study will feed into the next round of Local Transport Plans, due to be submitted in July 2005.

  Transport and Social Exclusion
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what plans his Department has made for the implementation of accessibility planning promoted in the Special Exclusion Unit's report 'Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion'; and what funding his Department has allocated to local authorities for this purpose; [119133]
  25W
  (2) what the (a) remit, (b) membership and (c) timetable is of the working group set up to examine accessibility, auditing and planning referred to in paragraph 5.33 of the Social Exclusion Unit's report 'Making the Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion'. [119137]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The remit of the Central-Local Working Group on Accessibility Planning is to develop, pilot and evaluate aspects of the accessibility planning process and to share good practice. The group comprises representatives from the Department for Transport, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, Local Government Association, Association of Transport Coordinating Officers and Passenger Transport Executive Group. It also includes authorities that have been recognised for work of particular relevance to accessibility planning through the Beacon Council and Centres of Excellence initiatives and authorities that are piloting accessibility planning as part of the Department's research programme.

  The working group has met three times since publication of the SEU report in February 2003. It has agreed a forward work programme to inform departmental guidance to transport authorities on accessibility planning, to be published next year. Authorities preparing second Local Transport Plans (due in 2005) will be asked to lead accessibility planning and incorporate it into their next LTPs.

  No additional funding has been provided for this work. The intention of accessibility planning is to ensure that existing funding, for transport, other services and regeneration, is used more effectively to make it easier for people to get access to jobs and key services.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for the dissemination of the findings of the Social Exclusion Unit's February 2003 report, "Making Connections: Transport and Social Exclusion"(a) to local authorities and (b) to other transport providers, including private operators; and if he will make a statement. [119134]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The "Making the Connections" report was widely disseminated. Approximately 4,000 copies were sent out via post and email to those involved in the consultation and to other interested parties. Copies were sent to every local authority (including Shire Districts, where appropriate) in England—a copy to the Chief Executive and one to the person responsible for local transport planning (where appropriate)—well as to all the members of the Confederation of Passenger Transport, which includes private operators. The report is also being sent to all local strategic partnerships.

  Ministers and officials have spoken at a wide range of events across the country which encompassed all sectors, such as transport planners, bus users, bus operators, community transport providers and the Local Government Association.

  Transport Policies
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what strategy he uses to disseminate good practice in the areas of(a) public consultation, (b) design, (c) implementation, (d) maintenance and (e) marketing
  26W
  of transport policies to (i) local authorities, (ii) public transport operators and (iii) other transport operators; and if he will make a statement. [119132]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My Department aims to ensure that all individuals and organisations who contribute to, or are affected by, the delivery of its objectives are supplied with the information they need. In order to do this, it uses a variety of means to communicate with local authorities, the transport industries and other stakeholders, appropriate to the information being communicated and the target audience. These include direct dealings with individual authorities, companies, representative regulators, and professional and trade bodies, including trade unions; issuing of policy and technical guidance notes and publication of research; sponsorship of and participation in consultative committees and advisory forums; and dissemination of all types of information by paid publicity, press, broadcasting and new media.

  Vehicle Excise Duty (Scotland)
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many instances there were of vehicle excise duty evasion in Scotland, broken down by local authority, in each year since 1997. [119706]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figures for number of instances of VED evasion in Scotland for the years in question are as follows:

  Estimated vehicle excise duty evasion in Scotland

  Vehicles evading (000s)

  1997–98

  107.2

  1998–99

  110.9

  1999–2000

  106.9

  2000–01

  110.9

  2001–02

  118.6

  2002–03

  126.4

  The information requested as to breakdown by local authority could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will estimate the cost of vehicle excise duty evasion in Scotland, broken down by local authority, in each year since 1997. [119876]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The figures for the cost of VED evasion in Scotland for the years in question are as follows:

  Estimated evasion in Scotland

  Revenue evaded (— million)

  1997–98

  12.5

  1998–99

  13.2

  1999–2000

  12.6

  2000–01

  13.1

  2001–02

  13.4

  2002—03

  13.6

  The information requested as to breakdown by local authority could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Restorative Justice
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his plans to extend the use of restorative justice with special reference to mediation and reparation. [119022]

  Paul Goggins
  The Government are keen to expand the use of restorative justice in the adult criminal justice system, as well as continuing to build on its success in the youth justice system. We will shortly publish a consultation document, which will outline our plans to increase the opportunity for mediation between offender and victims, and reparation to the community.

  Anti-social Behaviour
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received on combating anti-social behaviour. [119024]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Home Office Ministers, the National Director of the Anti-social Behaviour Unit and Members have received wide-ranging representations through formal and informal meetings, visits, and correspondence with members of the public, voluntary organisations, business organisations and local authorities. This has ensured that the White Paper, Bill and the Government's overall drive to tackle antisocial behaviour is based on the experiences of local communities faced with anti-social behaviour from across the country.

  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what representations he has received regarding the attitude of magistrates to breaches of Anti-social Behaviour Orders. [119032]

  Ms Blears
  We are aware that inconsistent sentences are being given for breaches of Anti-social Behaviour Orders around the country. To address this, the Home Office is working with the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and Lord Chancellor Department (LCD) to draw up a protocol to ensure the court is made aware of the context of the anti-social behaviour on victims, witnesses, and communities when determining sentence. In addition, the Magistrate's Association is producing sentencing guidelines that are scheduled to be published this summer.

  Drug Dealing
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that properties which have been taken over by Class A drug dealers are quickly closed.

  Caroline Flint
  The Anti-social Behaviour Bill, which will be at Report Stage on 24 June 2003, contains as Part 1 the power to close premises where Class A drugs are being produced, used or supplied and there is serious nuisance.

  This power is principally aimed at tackling Crack Houses and has been designed to ensure that any premises where dealers can continue their activities unobserved, and even in safety, can be rapidly closed
  28W
  and their occupants removed. This action can, if necessary, be resolved in 48 hours, providing immediate relief to the community.

  Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the operation of section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. [119027]

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

  Prisons
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he last met the Chief Inspector of Prisons to discuss prison overcrowding; and what the results of the discussions were. [119028]

  Paul Goggins
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Hilary Benn) met Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons on several occasions in recent months. I met Anne Owers on 9 June 2003 when we discussed a range of issues, including population pressures in prisons.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many safe cells were installed in prisons in the past 12 months; and how many are planned to be installed in the next 12 months. [119029]

  Paul Goggins
  In the last 12 months, 847 safer cells were installed and 122 are planned for installation during the next 12 months.

  Extradition (United States)
  Mr. Alistair Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the extradition treaty signed with the United States on 31 March. [119031]

  Caroline Flint
  The United States is our biggest single extradition partner so I am delighted that it has been possible to reach agreement on a new extradition treaty which modernises the 1977 and 1986 treaties. We hope that it will be possible to bring the new treaty into effect later this year.

  Crack Cocaine
  Linda Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps his Department is taking to help communities which are affected by crack cocaine. [119033]

  Caroline Flint
  In December 2002, the Government published the first National Crack plan. It recognises the particular problems caused by crack cocaine and the need to take specific and focused actions to address them. The Plan requires action to prevent crack use, deal with the criminality and disorder associated with it and provide appropriate treatment for those using crack.
  29W
  That we are treating crack as a priority is illustrated by the power to close crack houses contained in the Antisocial Behaviour Bill. Premises, in particular crack houses which are venues for Class A drugs, to be supplied and used causing serious nuisance to the community and neighbours will be closed rapidly and effectively.

  As a whole, the resources available to fight drugs are increasing from —1.026 million in 2002–03 to —1.483 million in 2005–06. We will ensure that in this expansion all elements of the drug strategy apply to crack, enabling:
  increased activity to disrupt crack markets and close crack houses;
  new diversionary programmes for young people;
  an expansion in the quantity and improvement in the quality of crack treatment; and
  a raft of Criminal Justice interventions to get users into treatment.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, if he will make a statement on the implications of the draft EU constitution for matters within his responsibilities. [119034]

  Mr. Blunkett
  Existing treaties already provide for police and judicial co-operation and EU action on immigration and asylum. These were areas of cooperation begun by the Conservative Government.

  New treaty brings existing EU work into a single merged treaty structure. Negotiations continuing, treaty will be agreed at intergovernmental conference (IGC) by unanimity.

  Cannabis
  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what changes he estimates there will be in police expenditure in the next financial year following the reclassification of cannabis. [119035]

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Crime and disorder reduction partnerships

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Camden

  5,473

  2.7

  27.0

  416

  30.8

  2.1

  City of London

  593

  9.4

  93.1

  33

  230.0

  5.2

  City of Westminster

  8,734

  3.0

  35.7

  111

  49.3

  3.2

  Brent

  5,688

  -1.5

  22.3

  334

  -1.5

  1.3

  Baling

  6,842

  6.4

  22.0

  342

  -0.6

  1.1

  Greenwich

  6,257

  -0.8

  28.7

  361

  5.2

  1.7

  Hackney

  6,702

  6.0

  33.0

  370

  -0.3

  1.8

  Haringey

  5,088

  -2.2

  22.6

  492

  14.2

  2.2

  Islington

  5,667

  4.1

  31.8

  347

  31.4

  1.9

  Lambeth

  8,232

  4.1

  29.8

  544

  -3.0

  2.0

  Lewisham

  5,501

  3.2

  22.4

  389

  4.6

  1.6

  Newham

  7,550

  2.8

  31.5

  433

  29.6

  1.8

  Southwark

  7,760

  4.3

  32.5

  438

  -1.4

  1.8

  Tower Hamlets

  6,390

  7.1

  34.2

  347

  -9.4

  1.9

  Barnet

  4,842

  5.9

  14.0

  245

  11.4

  0.7

  Croydon

  6,206

  -1.9

  18.3

  384

  -2.0

  1.1

  Enfield

  5,077

  5.8

  18.8

  296

  15.6

  1.1

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  4,283

  -1.9

  25.8

  219

  -1.4

  1.3

  30W
  Caroline Flint
  The reclassification of cannabis is designed to continue to deter the use of cannabis while allowing the police to redeploy their resources to tackling more serious offences, including dealing in Class A drugs. It is vital that the police direct their resourcing priorities to tackling drugs, such as heroin and crack cocaine, which cause the most harm and often lead to other crimes, and this is what the reclassification of cannabis will enable them to do.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultation he has had with the secretaries of the National Assembly for Wales regarding the UK-wide identity card. [119023]

  Caroline Flint
  My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary contacted the First Minister prior to the publication of the consultation paper on entitlement cards and identity fraud. Contact has been maintained at official level, including arrangements to make the paper available to all the secretaries of the National Assembly when it was published.

  National Assembly officials are involved in ongoing discussions following the end of the consultation.

  Crime Statistics (London)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the level of crime in(a) the London Borough of Havering and (b) other London boroughs. [91337]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  In Havering, during the 12 months to March 2002, there was a total of 3,225 recorded violence against the person offences; 549 recorded robbery offences; 1,109 recorded domestic burglary offences; 1,883 recorded thefts of vehicles offences; and 2,374 recorded thefts from vehicles offences.

  Numbers of crimes recorded by the police, broken down by Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership (CDRP), can be found in 'Crime in England and Wales 2001–02' (Home Office Statistical Bulletin 7/02), which is also available in the Library. Crime levels for Havering CDRP compared with other CDRPs in London are set out in the following table. The total level of crime for each CDRP is not currently published.
  31W

  Violence against the person

  Sexual offences

  Crime and disorder reduction partnerships

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Harrow

  2,658

  7.8

  12.4

  118

  -4.1

  0.5

  Hillingdon

  4,766

  16.4

  18.6

  268

  29.5

  1.0

  Hounslow

  5,798

  6.7

  27.2

  279

  13.9

  1.3

  Kensington & Chelsea

  3,063

  -7.6

  16.1

  191

  37.4

  1.0

  Kingston Upon Thames

  2,667

  6.9

  17.6

  153

  27.5

  1.0

  Merton

  3,153

  7.5

  16.6

  187

  58.5

  1.0

  Redbridge

  3,721

  -0.9

  15.9

  240

  23.7

  1.0

  Richmond Upon Thames

  2,115

  6.2

  10.8

  112

  19.1

  0.6

  Waltham Forest

  4,973

  3.5

  22.7

  297

  20.2

  1.4

  Wandsworth

  5,002

  2.9

  18.5

  364

  25.1

  1.3

  Barking & Dagenham

  3,941

  9.4

  25.3

  211

  0.5

  1.4

  Bexley

  3,339

  4.1

  15.1

  222

  17.5

  1.0

  Bromley

  3,843

  1.1

  12.7

  232

  24.7

  0.8

  Havering

  3,225

  15.7

  14.0

  173

  9.5

  0.7

  Sutton

  2,451

  19.2

  13.7

  115

  18.6

  0.6

  Note:

  1. Offences recorded 2001–02

  2. Change 2000–01 to 2001–02 (Percentage)

  3. Offences per 1,000 population

  Robbery offences

  Burglary dwelling

  Crime and disorder reduction partnerships

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Camden

  2,439

  28.0

  12.0

  3,216

  9.6

  15.9

  City of London

  46

  -13.2

  7.2

  39

  -18.8

  6.1

  City of Westminster

  2,763

  15.3

  11.3

  2,524

  -0.2

  10.3

  Brent

  2,359

  21.5

  9.3

  2,988

  -10.5

  11.7

  Baling

  2,264

  49.9

  7.3

  3,041

  0.3

  9.8

  Greenwich

  750

  59.9

  3.4

  1,733

  -9.0

  7.9

  Hackney

  3,009

  32.3

  14.8

  3,111

  -0.6

  15.3

  Haringey

  2,626

  12.2

  11.7

  3,835

  26.7

  17.0

  Islington

  1,659

  9.8

  9.3

  2,966

  12.1

  16.6

  Lambeth

  6,465

  37.8

  23.4

  5,414

  14.0

  19.6

  Lewisham

  1,966

  27.1

  8.0

  2,612

  4.7

  10.6

  Newham

  2,400

  14.0

  10.0

  2,316

  25.9

  9.7

  Southwark

  3,086

  42.7

  12.9

  3,276

  21.4

  13.7

  Tower Hamlets

  2,117

  20.5

  11.3

  1,900

  1.2

  10.2

  Barnet

  1,335

  28.2

  3.9

  2,615

  -6.2

  7.6

  Croydon

  2,095

  33.6

  6.2

  2,671

  10.1

  7.9

  Enfield

  1,292

  11.1

  4.8

  2,800

  31.0

  10.4

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  1,343

  47.4

  8.1

  2,008

  -7.5

  12.1

  Harrow

  892

  59.6

  4.2

  1,946

  -8.3

  9.1

  Hillingdon

  645

  36.7

  2.5

  2,340

  -9.3

  9.2

  Hounslow

  1,042

  45.3

  4.9

  1,843

  -10.9

  8.7

  Kensington & Chelsea

  1,189

  20.0

  6.2

  1,876

  -26.7

  9.9

  Kingston Upon Thames

  318

  29.8

  2.1

  646

  -19.5

  4.3

  Merton

  634

  59.7

  3.3

  1,141

  6.2

  6.0

  Redbridge

  1,221

  35.7

  5.2

  1,865

  9.8

  8.0

  Richmond Upon Thames

  353

  49.6

  1.8

  1,261

  -16.2

  6.5

  Waltham Forest

  2,154

  68.1

  9.8

  2,579

  45.8

  11.8

  Wandsworth

  1,948

  36.5

  7.2

  3,108

  14.4

  11.5

  Barking & Dagenham

  861

  17.8

  5.5

  1,274

  25.6

  8.2

  Bexley

  501

  20.1

  2.3

  1,041

  -0.9

  4.7

  Bromley

  917

  33.9

  3.0

  1,836

  0.8

  6.1

  Havering

  549

  40.1

  2.4

  1,109

  23.6

  4.8

  Sutton

  339

  41.3

  1.9

  1,039

  34.2

  5.8

  Note:

  1. Offences recorded 2001–02

  2. Change 2000–01 to 2001–02 (Percentage)

  3. Offences per 1,000 population

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Crime and disorder reduction partnerships

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Camden

  2,127

  4.6

  10.5

  6,837

  17.2

  33.7

  City of London

  381

  51.2

  59.8

  511

  24.0

  80.2

  City of Westminster

  1,361

  -17.8

  5.6

  5,137

  11.9

  21.0

  Brent

  1,592

  -7.1

  6.2

  2,985

  2.7

  11.7

  Baling

  2,619

  0.8

  8.4

  4,748

  -7.6

  15.2

  Greenwich

  2,572

  5.3

  11.8

  2,779

  -4.6

  12.7

  32W 33W

  Theft of a motor vehicle

  Theft from a vehicle

  Crime and disorder reduction partnerships

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Note 1

  Note 2

  Note 3

  Hackney

  2,809

  -6.1

  13.8

  4,802

  -5.9

  23.7

  Haringey

  2,697

  -0.8

  12.0

  4,131

  13.0

  18.4

  Islington

  2,573

  5.1

  14.4

  4,584

  1.9

  25.7

  Lambeth

  3,054

  6.7

  11.1

  5,932

  23.8

  21.5

  Lewisham

  2,161

  -1.6

  8.8

  2,371

  5.8

  9.6

  Newham

  3,846

  -0.1

  16.1

  5,211

  0.7

  21.8

  Southwark

  2,804

  12.9

  11.7

  5,025

  32.3

  21.1

  Tower Hamlets

  2,225

  -9.8

  11.9

  5,091

  16.4

  27.3

  Barnet

  1,447

  -6.2

  4.2

  2,871

  -13.2

  8.3

  Croydon

  2,530

  -2.4

  7.4

  3,161

  1.5

  9.3

  Enfield

  2,133

  10.6

  7.9

  3,003

  -8.0

  11.1

  Hammersmith & Fulham

  1,213

  -5.3

  7.3

  4,805

  8.5

  28.9

  Harrow

  867

  16.5

  4.0

  1,551

  -5.4

  7.2

  Hillingdon

  1,838

  -7.1

  7.2

  3,396

  -3.1

  13.3

  Hounslow

  1,412

  -10.9

  6.6

  3,696

  5.0

  17.4

  Kensington & Chelsea

  1,102

  -25.6

  5.8

  3,335

  16.3

  17.5

  Kingston Upon Thames

  389

  -16.0

  2.6

  798

  -20.5

  5.3

  Merton

  1,006

  10.9

  5.3

  1,458

  -4.2

  7.7

  Redbridge

  2,589

  9.3

  11.1

  3,634

  12.4

  15.6

  Richmond Upon Thames

  645

  5.7

  3.3

  1,576

  13.0

  8.1

  Waltham Forest

  2,082

  1.6

  9.5

  3,050

  11.0

  13.9

  Wandsworth

  2,006

  2.6

  7.4

  4,148

  -0.3

  15.3

  Barking & Dagenham

  1,667

  -9.5

  10.7

  1,757

  -3.6

  11.3

  Bexley

  1,784

  0.2

  8.1

  2,029

  -9.2

  9.2

  Bromley

  2,173

  6.2

  7.2

  3,552

  20.1

  11.7

  Havering

  1,883

  2.2

  8.2

  2,374

  10.8

  10.3

  Sutton

  864

  -8.4

  4.8

  1,890

  31.2

  10.6

  Note:

  1. Offences recorded 2001–02

  2. Change 2000–01 to 2001–02 (Percentage)

  3. Offences per 1,000 population

  Intelligence Sources
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a copy of the Blelloch Report on the handling of intelligence sources in the Library. [111466]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have been asked to reply.

  The Blelloch Report deals with matters of national security and its sensitivity precludes publication.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 8 May; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [113102]

  Mr. Bob Ainsworth
  My noble Friend Lord Filkin represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) Council in Brussels on 8 May.

  The A points were approved as in document PTS A 21 (8922/03) (a copy of which has been placed in the Library). This included adoption of the Protocol amending the Convention on the use of information technology for customs purposes as regards the creation of a customs files identification database (known as FIDE) which Ministers subsequently signed in the margins of the Council.

  Ministers discussed the Directive on minimum standards for the qualification and status of third-country nationals and stateless persons as refugees or as persons who otherwise need international protection
  34W
  with a view to resolving the outstanding reservations. However, one member state in particular maintained reservations on the text, including the definition of a refugee and on the right and benefits to be accorded to those with subsidiary protection status. The Presidency reiterated its intention to seek agreement to the Directive at the June JHA Council.

  The Council agreed to exclude refugees and beneficiaries of subsidiary protection from the scope of the Directive concerning the status of third country nationals who are long-term residents. This followed confirmation by the Commission that it would table by early 2004 a separate proposal for a Directive addressing the needs of those groups.

  The Presidency summarised progress on the follow up to the Seville European Council in view of the report to be submitted to the Thessaloniki European Council. The Commission reported on the implementation of the Afghan Returns Programme and the feasibility study on the Visa Information System which would be discussed at the June JHA Council. The Commission also confirmed that a Communication on international protection regimes would be prepared in time for that meeting. Lord Filkin urged member states to consider future priorities,—asylum (including recent UK ideas); reduction of flows of illegal migrants into the EU; more effective co-operation with source countries on returns; and better financing for JHA external action, including proper integration of JHA needs into other EU programmes.

  The Presidency and Commission reported on the negotiations with Switzerland on participation in the Schengen Acquis and asylum measures, noting that they

  35W
  would be remitted to the Committee of Permanent Representatives (COREPER) and then discussed at the General Affairs and External Relations Council.

  The Presidency reaffirmed its intention to seek adoption at the June JHA Council of the Council Decision authorising signature of the Agreements between the EU and USA on extradition and mutual legal assistance, with signature to take place at the EUUS Summit on 25 June. However, it noted that domestic parliamentary scrutiny was on-going for several member states, including the UK. A number of member states, including the UK, also indicated that they were considering the need to make constitutional statements in accordance with Article 24 TEU. One member state sought further amendments to the Extradition Agreement.

  The Council reached a general approach on the Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to financial penalties. The Presidency said that the European Parliament would need to be re-consulted on the text and further discussions were required on the recitals and accompanying certificate. Five member states, including the UK, maintained parliamentary scrutiny reservations.

  The Council agreed the appointment of two Europol Deputy Directors, including a UK candidate.

  Under any other business, Ministers also took note of the Commission's proposal for a Common Position on notifying the Council of Europe of the forthcoming application of the Framework Decision establishing the European Arrest Warrant between the member states. The Council received an update on recent discussions in the G8 which had reviewed progress made in the fight against terrorism and organised crime. Finally, the Netherlands drew the Council's attention to its contribution to the discussions on judicial cooperation in the Future of Europe Convention.

  Meat Imports
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what tonnage of legally imported meat was imported to the UK from(a) France, (b) Argentina and (c) Uruguay in 2002. [118022]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  Community legislation does permit imports of meat from France, Argentina and Uruguay. The table shows the tonnage of imported meat and meat preparations to the UK from (a) France, (b) Argentina and (c) Uruguay in 2002. Data on illegal imports are not available.

  Tonnage thousands

  Country

  2002

  France

  143,276

  Argentina

  24,652

  Uruguay

  16,592

  Note:

  2002 EU data is provisional and subject to amendment.

  Source:

  HM Customs and Excise. Data prepared by Statistics (Commodities and Food) Accounts and Trade, ESD, DEFRA

TREASURY

  Cash Machines (Charges)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission an assessment of the impact fee-charging cash machines have on those on low incomes. [118943]

  John Healey
  The Government are not currently planning to commission an assessment of the impact fee-charging cash machines have on those on low incomes.

  Issues regarding cash machines will, however, be considered as part of the Government's ongoing monitoring of payment system issues.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will regulate fee-charging for ATM withdrawals. [118944]

  John Healey
  The Cruickshank report of March 2000 rejected the idea of directly regulating the retail charges for ATM cash withdrawals or banning such charges. The Government agrees with this finding and currently has no plans to regulate fee-charging for ATM withdrawals.

  The costs of providing unrestricted access to cash, 24 hours a day at thousands of locations around the country are considerable. It is a matter of commercial judgment for ATM owners whether to pass these costs on to customers in the form of retail charges. Such charges allow ATMs to be located where otherwise it would not be cost effective to do so. Nevertheless, the Government do not think that it would be appropriate for ATM owners to charge customers in excess of reasonable costs.

  Recent years have seen a large increase in the number of ATMs—over 32 per cent. since March 2000. This expansion in the UK's network of ATMs has been to the benefit of consumers.

  The Government remain committed to introducing legislation to give the Office of Fair Trading new regulatory powers to promote effective competition in payment systems—and aims to do so as soon as parliamentary time allows. Issues relating to ATMs will be considered as part of this process.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of eligible families are in receipt of child tax credit. [119341]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Statistics on awards of child and working tax credits will be published when figures are available.

  Heroin
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the proportion of the UK heroin trade which originated in Afghanistan in each of the last 10 years. [118704]
  37W
  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise estimates that in the last three years up to 95 per cent. of the heroin consumed in the United Kingdom originated from opium produced in Afghanistan. No estimate has been made for the years prior to that.

  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to revise the regulations governing mortgage interest relief for people who took out a mortgage prior to October 1995 but have since remortgaged their property with a different lender. [118954]

  Mr. Boateng
  Mortgage Interest Relief was withdrawn with effect from April 2000. This tax relief is now only given on loans, taken out before 9 March 1999, and used by people aged over 65 to purchase life annuities. These loans have to meet certain conditions—for example, the loan must be secured on the borrower's main residence. Loans replacing such loans may also qualify for relief. There are no plans to change the rules governing this relief.

  Terrorism
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) progress made and (b) measures yet to be achieved in attaining satisfactory collaboration from (i) the banking and financial sector and (ii) national regulatory bodies of the member states of the United Nations in the war against terrorism. [118882]

  Mr. Boateng
  The UK banking and financial sector gives the Government its fullest support in the fight against terrorism. UK institutions have successfully frozen some US$100 million of terrorist funds before and since 11 September and provide regular reports to the Bank of England on the totals held. Currently, around $58 million remains frozen.

  All the relevant institutions in UN member states work collaboratively to ensure that United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1373 (regarding terrorist financing generally) and 1390 (targeting the Taliban and al-Qaeda) are enforced.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many tax returns based upon the CIS4 scheme were received for the tax years(a) 1999–2000, (b) 2000–01 and (c) 2001–02. [118826]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The number of tax returns received relating to the Construction Industry Scheme in 2000–01 was 590,000. The figures for 1999–2000 cannot be accurately provided as this tax year included both the previous and current schemes, while the figures for 2001–02 are not yet available.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the loss to the National Insurance Fund resulting from wrongly defined self-employment in the construction industry in each tax year since 1990–91. [118827]
  38W
  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has no information that can accurately provide an estimate of revenue which may have been lost in cases where the contract has not been categorised correctly.

  The tax and national insurance rules, which distinguish the employed from the self-employed, are intended to apply to all workers. The Inland Revenue polices compliance with those rules in all industries, including the construction industry, to ensure that people are paying their tax and national insurance contributions on the correct basis.

  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many CIS4 cards have been issued in each tax year since the inception of the scheme. [118824]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The figures for the number of CIS4 cards issued in each tax year since the scheme began are as follows:

  Number

  December 1998 to 5 April 2000

  789,957

  6 April 2000 to 5 April 2001

  229,630

  6 April 2001 to 5 April 2002

  222,874

  6 April 2002 to 5 April 2003

  272,104

  Crown Estate
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many media officers have been employed by the Crown Estate in each year since 1985. [118618]

  John Healey
  The Crown Estate has employed a maximum of three media officers and one administrative support officer in any one year since 1985.

  Dover Harbour Board
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to what extent the borrowing authorisation of —50.4 million of the Dover Harbour Board is included in the Government's PSBR; and if he will make a statement. [118596]

  Mr. Boateng
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: Dover Harbour Board is classified to the public corporation sector in the national accounts. Thus spending and borrowing of Dover Harbour Board is public sector spending and borrowing, in particular its borrowing from the private sector is included in Public Sector Net Borrowing. While facilities to borrow do not themselves impact on PSNB the draw down of that facility to finance expenditure would.

  Euro
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his reasons are for deciding that it is not necessary to rejoin the ERM before joining the euro. [118857]

  John Healey
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Chancellor's Statement to the House on 9 June 2003.

  Higher Rate Taxpayers
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of the population liable for
  39W
  tax in (a) Stoke-on-Trent, South constituency and (b) Stoke-on-Trent unitary authority are (i) higher rate taxpayers and (ii) exempt from paying tax. [119155]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is given in the table below.

  Proportion of taxpayers in the area that have higher rate liability

  Area

  Percentage

  (a) Stoke-on-Trent South Constituency

  2

  (b) Stoke-on-Trent Unitary Authority

  2

  No one who is liable to tax is exempt from paying tax.

  The estimates are based on the Survey of Personal Incomes 2000–2001

  Inland Revenue (Technology Systems)
  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what further steps have been taken since the Government's response to the Committee of Public Accounts' 38th Report of Session 2001–02, to encourage competition for the supply of information technology systems when the Inland Revenue's contracts with Accenture and Electronic Data Systems come up for renewal in 2004. [119671]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue has continued to work actively with the three short-listed bidders. A final version of the Invitation to Tender was issued on 13 December 2002 and the Department held a number of briefings with each bidder to help them respond to that document. All three bidders submitted comprehensive responses on 14 March 2003 and these are now being evaluated. The responses show that the IT services industry is very serious about the competition with seven leading IT suppliers engaged in one or other of the three bids for the contract. The Government believe that the steps taken have created a very real competition.

  National insurance
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) total reserves and (b) national insurance contributions were in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) 2003–04. [118755]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The requested information for 1996–97 was published by the DSS on 22 January 1998 in the White Paper HC465, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  The requested information for 2003–04 was published by GAD in CM5746—Report by the Government Actuary on the drafts of the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order 2003 and the Social Security (Contributions) (Re-rating and National Insurance Funds Payments) Order 2003, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make it his policy that all official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from his office uses the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118749]
  40W
  John Healey
  Guidance issued by the Cabinet Office on the handling of ministerial and other correspondence emphasises the importance of ensuring that the quality of all replies is high and that departmental publications accord with its guidance on plain written English.

  Personal Debt
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to reduce the level of personal debt within the UK. [119236]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Government aims to provide a framework of macroeconomic stability and awareness of financial issues within which people can make informed, responsible decisions about how much debt it is prudent to incur.

  Tax Credits
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to advertise(a) the changes in the system for claiming for housing and council tax benefit, (b) the loss of the automatic right to help with health costs and (c) the loss of the automatic right to milk tokens following the changes in the child tax credit; and if he will make a statement. [118554]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The introduction of the child tax credit has caused no changes in the rules for claiming housing or council tax benefits. As before, these benefits are adjusted to take into account tax credit income. Families on income support or income based jobseeker's allowance who are also in receipt of housing and council tax benefit have been notified about the introduction of tax credits. If they require any information or require help with their tax credit claim, they can go to their local Jobcentre Plus Office.

  Low income families will remain entitled to help with health costs and milk tokens while they receive child tax credit. The Inland Revenue has published a leaflet, "WT6—Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit—Other Types of Help You May Be Able To Get", which explains how the tax credits can help families receive other benefits such as having health costs met and getting milk tokens. The leaflet is available from Inland Revenue Offices and Enquiry Centres and online at the Inland Revenue website.

  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what provisions he plans to ensure that working tax credit continues to be paid without interruption to the father of dependent children when his wife dies. [118985]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The father should contact the Inland Revenue to bring to an end the tax credit award made to him and his wife and make a fresh claim for tax credits in his name alone. In these circumstances, the Revenue will do everything it can to see that the new award is set up as quickly and smoothly as possible.

  To be eligible to continue to receive Working Tax Credit, the father will need to be in work for at least 16 hours a week. As a lone parent, he can claim the lone parent element of Working Tax Credit. In addition, the father could receive help with the costs of registered or approved childcare. He should also claim Child Tax

  41W
  Credit and Child Benefit registered or approved childcare. He should also claim Child Tax Credit and Child Benefit.

  Thalidomide Trust
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with(a) Diageo and (b) the Thalidomide Trust about the funding of the Trust; and if he will make a statement. [119663]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has not had any discussions with either Diageo or the Thalidomide Trust about the funding of the trust. I however met the trustees of the Thalidomide Trust on 18 December 2002 and discussed funding (among other things) with them.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been provided in funding to community amateur sports clubs since July 2002, broken down by(a) region and (b) sport. [119142]

  Mr. Caborn
  Through Sport England, community amateur sports clubs in England have received awards from the National Lottery since July 2002, as follows:

  Region

  Award Amount

  East Midlands

  1,790,734

  Eastern

  1,063,485

  London

  1,884,299

  North East

  4,157,684

  North West

  2,953,210

  South East

  3,141,963

  South West

  4,720,592

  West Midlands

  358,554

  Yorkshire

  2,571,732

  Total

  22,642,253

  Sport

  Award Amount

  Association Football

  2,179,307

  Badminton

  3,137,976

  Bowls

  1,974,633

  Boxing

  169,327

  Canoeing

  744,613

  Cricket

  3,108,946

  Croquet

  15,761

  Equestrian

  334,582

  Exercise and Fitness

  720,079

  Gliding

  95,634

  Golf

  303,752

  Gymnastics

  230,152

  Hockey

  230,459

  Lawn Tennis

  1,528,085

  Mountaineering

  45,000

  Multi Sports

  1,683,736

  Roller Skating

  139,341

  Rowing

  1,286,271

  Rugby League

  562,880

  Rugby Union

  2,686,318

  Sailing and Yachting

  1,340,254

  Skateboarding

  114,892

  Sub-aqua

  10,255

  Total

  22,642,253

  Community Fund
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy to allow the Community Fund to support organisations that are neither registered charities nor essentially philanthropic. [119484]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under existing legislation, the Community Fund is able to support organisations which are registered charities, and those which are deemed to be charitable, philanthropic and benevolent. The Government have no plans to amend the Community Fund's current remit.

  Cultural Events
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which large cultural events staged by ethnic minority organisations were supported financially by her Department and its non-departmental public bodies in each of the last 10 years; and if she will list the amount each of those events received. [119140]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Local Authority Sports Expenditure
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment she has made of the impact of the change in local authority expenditure on sport and physical recreation from 1998 to 2002. [119578]

  Mr. Caborn
  According to statistics provided by the Office of National Statistics, local authority spending on sport and physical recreation has increased slightly during the period between 1998 and 2002.

  The Government recognises the importance of local delivery of sport and the impact it can have on levels of participation in physical recreation. The December 2002 joint Department for Culture Media and Sport/Strategy Unit report, 'Game Plan: A Strategy for Delivering Government's Sport and Physical Activity Objectives', assesses local authority delivery of Sport and makes a number of recommendations to improve delivery at that level.

  The Department is currently considering how best it can take forward the commendations made in the Game Plan report.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations her Department has received from Sport England about a reallocation of lottery funds from the New Opportunities Fund to sports lottery funds. [119574]

  Mr. Caborn
  The New Opportunities Fund, given its responsibilities for health and education, are also actively engaged in providing additional opportunities for active recreation in and around schools and in the community. We require the closest cooperation and collaboration between them. Sport England has suggested that the New Opportunities Fund might help do even more in this area and I am considering this.
  43W
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the(a) budget allocated for playing fields, (b) amount spent on playing fields and (c) new playing fields created by the New Opportunities Fund Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities Initiative in (i) 2000–01, (ii) 2001–02, (iii) 2002–03 and (iv) 2003–04. [119576]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the New Opportunities Fund's Green Spaces and Sustainable Communities programme allocations are not made for each year, but the total budget for playing fields is —19,595,102. Total awards made and amount spent in each year are detailed in the following table:

  (—s)

  Awards made

  Amount spent

  2000–2001

  421,007

  Nil

  2001–2002

  8,014,079

  106,928

  2002–3003

  10,621,839

  55,976

  2003–2004

  538,177

  Nil (although remaining —192,432,198 will be spent by the end of this financial year

  We have contacted the New Opportunities Fund to request the information requested on the number of new playing fields created by the initiative and I will write to the hon. Member a soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the(a) budget allocated, (b) amount spent and (c) projects funded by the (i) Space for Sport and the Arts project and (ii) New Opportunities Fund's PE and Sport Programme in (A) 2000–01, (B) 2001–02, (C) 2002–03 and (D) 2003–04. [119577]

  Mr. Caborn
  Under the New Opportunities Fund's PE and Sport programme allocations are not made for each year, but the overall budget for local education authorities in England is —495,163,000. Awards under the programme commenced in 2002–2003, when 161 awards were made worth —32,281,739. In 2003–2004, NOF has so far made 48 awards with a value of —10,953,863.

  We have contacted Sport England to request the information requested on Space for Sport and the Arts and I will write to the hon. Member as soon as it is available, placing copies of my letter in the libraries of both Houses.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the potential impact of the forced repatriation of Afghans from Pakistan. [118578]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We welcome the return of two million refugees to Afghanistan from Pakistan and Iran. The successful returns programme is a testament to the work of the UN High Commission for Refugees. We also recognise that Pakistan and Iran have in recent 44W
  years shouldered the burden of more than five million Afghan refugees, fleeing from more than two decades of civil war, the Taliban, and four years of drought.

  The Afghan Government has limited capacity to absorb returns. Afghanistan therefore needs the support of host countries seeking to return refugees to ensure that those returns are sustainable. This includes ensuring returns to Afghanistan are compliant with the terms of the 1951 UN Refugee Convention, and are carried out with the consent of the Afghan Government.

  EU Directives
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many regulations originating from EU directives have been introduced in each of the last five years. [119204]

  Mr. MacShane
  This information is not held centrally by the Government; to compile the information would incur disproportionate costs.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to ensure that water and electricity supplies and essential public services in Iraq have been maintained. [118977]

  Hilary Benn
  I have been asked to reply.

  DFID has so far committed —115 million towards humanitarian assistance in the current crisis. We have set aside a further —95 million for additional needs as they emerge. We are working with UN agencies, NGOs and the Coalition Provisional Authority to ensure that water and electricity supplies and essential public services in Iraq are restored and maintained.

  The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and others, including the UK military in Basra, have done good work to repair water and electricity facilities, and to supply water and power by alternative means while supplies are disrupted.

  Lord Ashcroft
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the costs to be borne by Her Majesty's Government for the settlement of the case conducted by Lord Ashcroft; whether an apology has been issued; who has the responsibility for the errors which have been accepted by Her Majesty's Government; and if he will make a statement. [119175]

  Mr. Straw
  The settlement of the cases brought by Lord Ashcroft against various Government Departments involved a payment of —350,000 towards Lord Ashcroft's overall costs, two thirds of which will be paid by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and one third by the Department for International Development.
  45W
  On the occasion of settlement, on 5 June, the following Government statement was read out in Open Court:
  "During the years 1999 and 2000, documents held by certain Government Departments, and which contained references relating to the affairs of Lord Ashcroft were disclosed to the media.
  Despite investigation, the Government was not able to establish how the unauthorised disclosures to the media occurred.
  The Government has though recognised that various disobliging references relating to Lord Ashcroft which were contained within documents held by Government Departments were without foundation.
  Lord Ashcroft commenced litigation following the unauthorised disclosures. That litigation has today been settled, with the Government Departments which were defendants to those actions apologising to Lord Ashcroft."

  Colin Berry
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Afghan authorities concerning Mr. Colin Berry, a constituent. [119326]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer of 13 June 2003]: Mr. Berry is currently in detention in Afghanistan. I raised Mr. Berry's case with the Afghan Ambassador last week. Our Embassy in Kabul has also raised the case on numerous occasions with the Afghan authorities. We are pressing the Afghan authorities to ensure that Mr. Berry's case is properly handled and that he receives a fair trial.

  Mr. Berry is visited regularly by consular staff from our Embassy in Kabul and we will continue to represent his interests.

  Overseas Territories
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which overseas territories are in the process of revising their constitutions and, in each case, what the anticipated timescale is for(a) the overseas territory to finalise their requests for revision and (b) referral to the Privy Council for an Order. [118886]

  Mr. MacShane
  The following Overseas Territories are in the process of reviewing their constitutions: Anguilla; the British Virgin Islands; the Cayman Islands; the Falkland Islands; Gibraltar; Montserrat; St Helena; and the Turks and Caicos Islands.

  There is no anticipated timescale for submitting draft Orders in Council containing revised constitutions to the Privy Council; this will depend on the conclusion of discussions with the territories concerned about their proposals for constitutional revision.
  46W
  The following is a summary of the stage reached in the constitutional review process in each territory concerned:
  Anguilla: A local review commission is reviewing the Constitution; we expect it to report later this year and that proposals for revision will be made by 31 March 2004.
  British Virgin Islands: A local review commission is expected to be established within the next few months.
  Cayman Islands; St Helena: Proposals for revised constitutions have been discussed with the FCO and are under consideration.
  Falkland Islands: A committee of the local Legislative Council is reviewing the Constitution but has yet to report.
  Gibraltar: The Select Committee on Constitutional Reform of the Gibraltar House of Assembly has reviewed the Constitution; the Chief Minister has indicated that he expects to table proposals for discussion during the course of the year.
  Turks and Caicos Islands; Montserrat: Local review commissions have recommended changes and these are under consideration in the territories; we expect firm proposals from the local Legislative Councils later this year.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many children residing in the Turks and Caicos Islands are not receiving full-time education; and what action the Government propose to take. [118888]

  Mr. MacShane
  Education is the responsibility of the Turks and Caicos Islands (TCI) government. All children legally entitled to be in the TCI are attending educational establishments. These amount to some 4,492 students, (including those at the Community College). The cases of students who were unable to register because their immigration status was unclear are being examined; in the meantime some are actually attending school. The Department of Education does not hold statistics for these cases.

  UN Special Committee on Decolonisation
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what involvement the United Kingdom Government had in the UN's Special Committee on Decolonisation's conference Advancing the Decolonisation Process in the Caribbean and Bermuda held in Anguilla last month. [118890]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Chairman of the UN decolonisation committee asked last year whether the Committee's annual seminar could be held in 2003 on a UK Caribbean Overseas Territory. We and the Anguillian Government agreed the request and subsequently signed an agreement with the UN covering practical arrangements.

  The seminar, which took place from 20–22 May, was attended by Chief Ministers and senior representatives of a number of UK Overseas Territories. The FCO was represented by the Deputy Head of Overseas Territories Department and a representative of the UK Mission to the UN.

  Visas (Syria)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visas were issued at the British Embassy in Syria in each of the last three years to(a) people seeking political asylum, (b) students, (c) visitors and tourists, (d) people

  47W
  seeking indefinite leave to remain and (e) people seeking to join their spouses; and if he will make a statement. [118921]

  Mr. Rammell
  Applications for asylum are not accepted overseas. It is unlikely that would-be asylum seekers would disclose their intention to claim asylum on arrival to an Entry Clearance Officer as this would be likely to lead to the refusal of their visa application. We do not keep figures for those who have claimed asylum on entering the United Kingdom after having previously applied for entry clearance overseas.

  There were 535 entry clearance applications from prospective students at the British Embassy in Damascus in 2000, 502 in 2001 and 377 in 2002.

  There were 4,263 entry clearance applications in Damascus from those who wished to visit the United Kingdom in 2000, 3,525 in 2001 and 3,773 in 2002.

  In 2000 there were 71 entry clearance applications in Damascus by individuals who wished to settle in the United Kingdom, 178 in 2001 and 287 in 2002.

  There are no specific entry clearance categories for visa applicants who wish to join their spouses in the United Kingdom, or for those seeking indefinite leave to remain. These applicants fall within the settlement category, statistics for which are given above.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what intelligence gathering mechanism she has for determining the bona fides of arms dealers and purchasers. [118936]

  Nigel Griffiths
  I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 619W.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the research which she has commissioned on US end-user monitoring and controls, with special reference to the use of(a) mutual and (b) multilateral legal assistance treaties. [118941]

  Nigel Griffiths
  My right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, has not commissioned any research on US end-user monitoring and controls.

  Broadband
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the progress of rolling out broadband internet coverage in East Sussex. [117359]

  Mr. Timms
  I visited East Sussex on 22 May with my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs to review progress on rolling out broadband.
  48W
  South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) is committed to, and very active in rolling out broadband coverage in East Sussex. Two significant areas of activity are:
  Plans for a 'Coastal Superhighway' that will bring broadband to the East Sussex coast via a fibre optic network.
  The Remote Area Broadband inclusion Trial (RABBIT) scheme providing grants to pilot the use of satellite and wireless broadband solutions as an alternative to BT ADSL or cable broadband.

  Construction Industry
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people were(a) employed and (b) self-employed in the construction industry in England and Wales in (i) 1973, (ii) 1978, (iii) 1983, (iv) 1988 and (v) each year from 1990 to 2002. [118825]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Alan Hurst dated 16 June 2003:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question (198) about how many people were (a) employed and (b) self-employed in the construction industry in England and Wales in (i) 1973, (ii) 1978, (iii) 1983, (iv) 1988 and (v) in each of the years from 1992 to 2002.
  The information requested on employee jobs in construction is set out below. Data for England and Wales are not available for 1973 and 1978.

  England and Wales employee jobs in construction 1983–2002

  Thousands

  June 1983

  1,013

  June 1988

  1,043

  June 1992

  883

  June 1993

  808

  June 1994

  795

  June 1995

  784

  June 1996

  771

  June 1997

  835

  June 1998

  948

  June 1999

  947

  June 2000

  1,010

  June 2001

  1,011

  June 2002

  977

  The table below shows the number of self-employment jobs in construction in Great Britain (separate figures for England and Wales are not available). The relevant data are only available under the current Standard Industrial Classification (1992) from 1994.

  GB self-employment jobs in construction 1994–2002

  Thousands

  June 1994

  757

  June 1995

  766

  June 1996

  770

  June 1997

  677

  June 1998

  625

  June 1999

  618

  June 2000

  608

  June 2001

  619

  June 2002

  665

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets her Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how she intends to achieve these targets. [116646]

  Nigel Griffiths
  In common with all other Government Departments, DTI is working towards the interim energy target for the Government Estate—an on-going 1 per cent. per annum reduction in greenhouse gas emissions from buildings, expressed in terms of carbon savings.

  To help meet this target, DTI undertook an estate-wide energy audit to identify areas where further savings could be made. This resulted in the enhancement of a DTI Building Energy Management System and the installation of Inverter Variable Speed Drives.

  Other measures which contribute to this target include; ISO 14001 certified Environmental Management Systems across the DTI HQ estate; 33 per cent. of electricity in the DTI HQ estate is purchased from renewable sources; promoting environmental and energy awareness to DTI staff through 'Green Teams' who disseminate green and energy issues to their colleagues; and a number of specific measures such as installation of solar film for windows.

  Post Office
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to transfer responsibilities for Government activities to the post office. [118350]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 10 June 2003]: There are no plans to transfer responsibilities for Government activities to the post office network.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether she or her Ministers have received documents issued by Royal Mail relating to(a) bonuses and (b) incentives for post office managers who achieve targets for closures of post office branches. [118726]

  Mr. Timms
  Staff management and remuneration arrangements are operational matters for Post Office Ltd. Documents relating to such matters are not seen by either Ministers or officials in the Department.

  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on European Commission state aid approval for the subsidy for rural post offices. [118774]

  Mr. Timms
  On 27 May the European Commission approved the package of funding for Post Office Ltd. I announced on 2 December. This is great news for our rural post offices and the wider post office network. The cash provides a vital life-line to the rural network and will secure access to rural post office services over the next three years.

  Postage Stamps (Discounted Sales)
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what conditions supermarkets may sell postage stamps at less than their face value. [118229]
  50W
  Mr. Timms
  Retailers may purchase books to stamps on a wholesale basis from the Royal Mail for resale in their outlets. I have asked the Chief Executive of Royal Mail to reply direct to the hon. Member on the conditions under which stamps may be sold at a discount.

  Post Offices, including rural sub-Post Offices, receive a supply of stamps to sell on behalf of Royal Mail and cannot sell stamps at a discounted price. The issue of the competitive implications of selling at discounted prices is a matter for the regulator, Postcomm.

  Postwatch Scotland
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the process for appointments to the Postwatch Scotland Committee. [118258]

  Mr. Timms
  The Regional Chair for Scotland is a member of Postwarch Council and thus an appointment made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry.

  Other appointments to the Postwatch Scotland Committee are a matter for Postwatch and I have therefore asked the Chairman to reply direct to the hon. Member setting out the appointments procedure.

  Trade Tariffs
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what trade tariffs and restrictions are placed on UK exports to non-EU countries owing to European Union legislation. [115167]

  Ms Hewitt
  None other than those restrictions relating to the strategic controls, illegal goods or trade sanctions.

CABINET OFFICE

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office 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. [117443]

  Mr. Alexander
  The Cabinet Office, Central Office of Information (COI) and the Government Car and Despatch Agency (GCDA) have separate delegated pay arrangements and have therefore been carrying out their own pay audits. All three organisations have completed their audits and I intend to place the results in the Library of the House once internal discussions have been completed.

  Playing Fields
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office whether the Government have strategy for the(a) management and (b) disposal of playing fields owned by Government departments. [112668]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.
  51W
  Each department is responsible for the management and disposal of its own assets in accordance with its Departmental Investment Strategy. However, school playing fields owned by local authorities are excluded. Guidance for departments on the disposal of assets is contained in Government Accounting.

DEFENCE

  A400M
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why he appointed OCCAR to enter into the contract for A400M aircraft on behalf of the United Kingdom; what direct control and influence he will exercise over the conduct and outcome of the project; what the arrangements are for this; and what power the UK has to withdraw from the contract if progress is not satisfactory. [117507]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Organisation for Joint Armament Co-operation (OCCAR) was established by France, Germany, Italy and the United Kingdom with the primary aim of providing improved management of cooperative defence equipment programmes. OCCAR uses management processes and procedures that have been developed in conjunction with the founder nations and which follow international best practice. In this light, the nations participating in A400M concluded that OCCAR provided the optimum route for managing the programme.

  The A400M partner nations have jointly agreed the high level objectives for the programme and the boundaries within which the OCCAR Executive Administration (EA) will operate. The working parameters are set out in the mandate that assigns the responsibility for managing the programme to OCCAR. Under this mandate, the Director of the OCCAR-EA is directly accountable to the A400M Programme Board, on which the nations are represented by their National Armaments Directors, for the delivery of this programme.

  The A400M contract provides the nations with termination rights in a number of circumstances, including failure to achieve a critical milestone or deliver an individual aircraft within a set period.

  Aircraft Carriers
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what delays have occurred so far in the aircraft carrier programme: what recent discussions his Department has held with BAE and Thales; and whether he expects the in-service date to be met. [118272]

  Mr. Ingram
  Work is progressing on the future aircraft carrier project consistent with our plan at the commencement of the CVF Assessment Phase, under which we expect to award the Demonstration and Manufacture (D and M) contract in spring 2004. MOD officials meet regularly with BAE Systems and Thales UK as part of the routine business of the Assessment Phase.

  Our target in-service dates for the two new carriers remain 2012 and 2015. Estimates for their delivery will be developed progressively during the remainder of the
  52W
  Assessment Phase, taking account of the maturing carrier design. Expected in-service dates will be confirmed when we place the D and M contract.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which parts of the aircraft carriers being built under the future aircraft carrier project will be built in foreign shipyards; and if he will make a statement. [118273]

  Mr. Ingram
  In line with Government policy on building warships for the Royal Navy, the future aircraft carriers will be built in the United Kingdom. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 30 January 2003, our planning is proceeding under the assumption that the carriers will be built by a combination of four yards: BAE Systems Marine at Govan, Vosper Thornycroft at Portsmouth, Swan Hunter on Tyneside, and Babcock BES at Rosyth. However, the involvement of other UK yards has not been ruled out.

  Armed Forces Funding
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether funding for the armed forces is determined by the planned number of servicemen; and what the impact on funding is of a shortfall in the number serving. [119237]

  Mr. Ingram
  Funding for Defence is decided as part of the biennial Spending Review process and takes into account all the factors relevant to the delivery of the Ministry of Defence's Public Service Agreement, including service manpower plans. Defence funding will next be reviewed as part of Spending Review 2004 when any changes in service manpower numbers and plans will be taken into account.

  Cluster Munitions
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what recent independent evidence has been gathered by his Department on failure rates of cluster munitions; [116812]

  (2) what target his Department has set for a failure rate in cluster munitions. [116817]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 5 June 2003]: Weapons containing cluster munitions are currently in service with the Army and Royal Air Force. The Army systems consist of Shell 155mm HE Extended Range Bomblet Shell (ERBS) and Multiple Launch Rocket System.

  Acceptance tests for the latest purchase of Shell 155mm HE ERBS have confirmed a maximum failure rate of 2 per cent., which is consistent with the results of Director Royal Artillery tests of 1994. The target reliability rate for ERBS is not less than 95 per cent.

  For the MLRS, US Government test reports, based on 15 years worth of data, indicate a failure rate of between 5 and 10 per cent., dependent on ground conditions and range. Although there is no target failure rate for the current MLRS system, its replacement (the future GMLRS Area Effects Munition (AEM)) due in service in 2007, has a target failure rate of less than 1 per cent. for bomblet sub-munitions.
  53W
  The RAF system consists of the BL755 cluster bomb, routine surveillance of a representative sample of weapons is carried out by the Design Authority (Insys Ltd.) on behalf of the Ministry of Defence. Recent statistics show an overall failure rate of 6 per cent. which is in line with expectations.

  Departmental Agencies
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will state in cash terms the(a) provision and (b) outturn for each of his Department's agencies since financial year 1997–98. [117501]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not held centrally in the format requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  However, Defence Agencies with an accounts direction from HM Treasury publish their own financial statements each year. Copies of these documents have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Desert Combat Clothing
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what orders have been given to the Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre at Chilwell for the withdrawal and then re-issue of desert combat clothing; and if he will make a statement. [119197]

  Mr. Ingram
  In accordance with Materiel Regulations for the Army, the Reserve Training and Mobilisation Centre at Chilwell withdraw from demobilised Reservists all additional kit above standard TA clothing scales, with the exception of next to skin items such as Socks and T-shirts. Desert Combat Clothing (DCC) is not part of standard TA clothing scales and is therefore withdrawn from Reservists. It is standard practice to return laundered kit (including DCC) to stock for re-issue.

  Hovercraft
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when hovercraft were last used in military operations by British forces and in what way; and if he will make a statement on hovercraft capability; [116240]

  (2) what assessment has been made of the value of hovercraft to amphibious and other military operations; how many are in service with the armed forces; if there are plans to increase numbers; and if he will make a statement. [116239]

  Mr. Ingram
  Hovercraft were used during the recent operations in Iraq for tasks including reconnaissance and mine clearance. The advantages of hovercraft include speed, the ability to access a higher percentage of beaches than conventional craft, the ability to travel over small obstacles and in shallow water and a relatively high level of immunity from the threat of mines.

  Currently, the Royal Marines (539ASRM) operate four Griffon 2000 TDX hovercraft. They have the capacity to lift 12 fully equipped troops or 2 x 1000kg pallets of stores and are capable of deployment in C130 Hercules aircraft. It is expected that the current fleet of hovercraft will be replaced in around 2007. There are no
  54W
  plans at present to increase overall numbers, although this will be kept under review, for example, in light of lessons learned from operations in Iraq.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what recent research has been undertaken in developing the hovercraft; and what finance was allocated to this research. [116241]

  Mr. Ingram
  No funding has recently been allocated to developing the hovercraft. The technology is well established and suitable craft are available as military off-the-shelf procurements or as modifications of commercial civilian designs.

  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations have been made by(a) private developers and (b) British forces representatives about the military use of hovercraft; and what discussions have taken place with manufacturing companies in the United States and United Kingdom regarding the development of hovercraft. [116242]

  Mr. Ingram
  There have been a number of routine fact-finding visits and meetings involving Ministry of Defence personnel and representatives of industry to establish the military utility of Hovercraft. These have included representations by companies based in the United Kingdom and United States. Most recently the Griffon 8000TD Hovercraft, a larger version of the 2000 TDX hovercraft current used by Royal Marines, was demonstrated to UK Military staff on 15 May 2003.

  Iraq
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the cost of the war in Iraq. [119005]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence identifies the costs of Operations in terms of the net additional costs it has incurred. The costs, which the MOD would have incurred had the operation not been undertaken—expenditure on wages and salaries or on conducting training exercises for example—are deducted from the total costs of the operation.

  Calculating all the costs of military action will take some time to determine since it will include the cost of ammunition, bombs and guided weapons consumed in excess of peacetime levels and the cost of equipment destroyed and damaged. These sums are likely to be significant. However excluding those costs, the latest estimate is that the net additional cost of Operations in Iraq for 2002–03 will not exceed —1 billion; the amount set aside at spring Supplementary Estimates 2002–03.

  It is too early to estimate the costs in 2003–04.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) the Secretary of State for International Development and (b) the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance regarding the restitution of the refuse collection system in Baghdad. [116258]

  Mr. Hoon
  I have had no specific discussions with either the Secretary of State for International Development, or the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), as ORHA is now termed, concerning the restitution of the refuse collection system in Baghdad.
  55W
  However, improving sanitation is among the Coalition's top priorities in the reconstruction of Iraq, and the CPA has recently facilitated the removal of almost a third of the 300,000 cubic metres of refuse that it is estimated remain uncollected in Baghdad.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many cluster bombs were used by British forces during the recent campaign in Iraq; and what assessment he has made of the number of unexploded cluster bombs in Iraq. [116927]

  Mr. Ingram
  United Kingdom forces used some 66 RBL755 air-delivered cluster bombs, each containing 147 bomblets, for which recent statistics show an overall failure rate of 6 per cent. and some 2,098 artillery-delivered L20 extended range bomblet shells, each containing 49 bomblets, which have a proven maximum bomblet failure rate of 2 per cent. Further evaluation of the latter will be required to establish the exact rate on the ground. We do not have comparable assessments for the rates of unexploded cluster munitions not delivered by UK forces.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether his Department has a programme for the removal of landmines in Iraq. [117038]

  Mr. Ingram
  Providing a safe, secure and risk free environment for the Iraqi people is a key aspect of restoration activity for the coalition. The United Kingdom itself has made a significant effort to educate the local population in its area of operations about the dangers of mines and unexploded ordnance, but the actual responsibility for developing a programme for the removal of landmines rests with the Iraq Mine Action Centre (IMAC) and not the UK military. The UK and the IMAC are in the process of marking and documenting around 400 unexploded ordnance sites. In addition to this, the UK has, with the support of UNICEF and the ICRC, developed a Theatre Mine Risk Education programme. A poster and leaflet campaign has been carried out, head teachers in Basrah have been briefed and military teams are delivering mine and unexploded ordnance awareness training to primary and secondary schools on a daily basis using material approved by the ICRC. In addition to this, local radio stations are informing the local population about unexploded ordnance and encouraging them not to tamper with anything that has either been marked as or may look like unexploded ordnance.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what his latest estimate is of the number of Iraqis who died in the recent conflict in that country, broken down by(a) military personnel and (b) civilians. [117369]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: We make every effort to minimise any impact of the coalition's military action on the Iraqi population. We have no means of ascertaining the numbers of Iraqi military personnel or civilians killed during the conflict.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what efforts are being made to protect citizens in Iraq from(a) entering the areas where unexploded bomblets are and (b) tampering with them. [118196]
  56W
  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 11 June 2003]: A coalition-wide operation is currently underway to check and mark all suspected areas of mine and unexploded ordnance contamination. In addition to this, the United Kingdom has made a significant effort to educate the local population in its area of operations about the dangers of mines and unexploded ordnance. UK forces, in conjunction with the Iraqi Mine Action Centre (a part of the Office of the Coalition Provisional Authority), are in the process of marking and documenting around 400 unexploded ordnance sites in the UK area of operation in Southern Iraq. Radio broadcasts are being used to inform the population of marking practices and encouraging them not to tamper with the markers. A Theatre Mine Risk Education Programme has been developed with the support of UNICEF and the ICRC. A poster and leaflet campaign has been carried out, head teachers in Basrah have been briefed and military teams are delivering mine/UXO awareness training to Primary and Secondary schools on a daily basis using material approved by the ICRC.

  RAF (Gulf Commitment)
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has for the commitment of RAF aircraft and personnel to operations in the Gulf region; and if he will make a statement. [112019]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence's written statement of 11 June 2003,Official Report, columns 51–2WS. We will continue to review our force levels in the context of the evolving strategic situation to ensure that we maintain an appropriate presence in Iraq for as long as necessary.

  Royal Navy
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels have visited Spanish ports in each of the past two years; and which ports were visited. [119097]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following tables list visits to Spanish ports by Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels for the calendar years 2001 and 2002. For completeness details have also been provided for 2003 until end of May. Also included is a visit by MV Hartland Points as part of the Ministry of Defence's Joint Rapid Reaction Force Ro-Ro capability.

  Visits to Spanish ports by RN and RFA vessels during 2001

  Port

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  Barcelona

  HMS Richmond

  8 February

  14 February

  Santa Cruz

  HMS Glasgow

  10 February

  14 February

  Santa Cruz

  RFA Black Rover

  10 February

  13 February

  Cadiz

  HMS Richmond

  20 March

  26 March

  Palma

  HMS Bridport

  22 March

  25 March

  Villagarcia de Arosa

  HMS Bridport

  30 March

  31 March

  Las Palmas

  HMS Richmond

  2 April

  7 April

  Las Palmas

  RFA Sir Tristram

  7 April

  7 April

  Las Palmas

  RFA Sir Percivale

  20 April

  21 April

  Santa Cruz

  HMS Beagle

  25 April

  29 April

  Las Palmas

  RFA Diligence

  1 May

  5 May

  Vigo

  RFA Fort Victoria

  11 May

  14 May

  Vigo

  RFA Brambleleaf

  19 May

  22 May

  Santa Cruz

  RFA Sir Geraint

  23 May

  24 May

  Palma

  HMS Somerset

  2 June

  5 June

  Ibiza

  HMS Bulldog

  3 June

  7 June

  La Coruna

  HMS Bulldog

  11 June

  15 June

  57W

  Visits to Spanish ports by RN and RFA vessels during 2001

  Port

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  Las Palmas

  HMS Beagle

  29 June

  2 July

  Algerciras

  RFA Oakleaf

  15 August

  16 August

  Cadiz

  HMS Roebuck

  17 August

  20 August

  Barcelona

  HMS Bangor

  28 August

  1 September

  Barcelona

  HMS Cattistock

  28 August

  1 September

  Barcelona

  RFA Diligence

  28 August

  1 September

  Barcelona

  HMS Inverness

  28 August

  1 September

  Barcelona

  HMS Quorn

  28 August

  1 September

  Barcelona

  HMS Walney

  28 August

  1 September

  Cadiz

  HMS Fearless

  2 September

  5 September

  Cadiz

  RFA Fort Rosalie

  2 September

  5 September

  Cadiz

  RFA Sir Bedivere

  2 September

  5 September

  Cadiz

  RFA Sir Percivale

  2 September

  5 September

  Cartagena

  RFA Sir Galahad

  3 September

  6 September

  Cartagena

  RFA Fort Austin

  3 September

  6 September

  Cartagena

  RFA Sir Tristram

  3 September

  6 September

  Malaga

  RFA Oakleaf

  3 September

  5 September

  Barcelona

  HMS Monmouth

  9 September

  13 September

  El Ferrol

  HMS Exeter

  29 September

  8 October

  Palma

  HMS Chatham

  3 October

  6 October

  La Coruna

  RFA Fort George

  5 October

  8 October

  Palma

  HMS Bangor

  5 October

  6 October

  Almeria

  HMS Bangor

  9 October

  14 October

  Rota

  HMS Bangor

  16 October

  17 October

  Cadiz

  HMS Bangor

  19 October

  21 October

  Palma

  HMS Bangor

  29 October

  29 October

  Palma

  HMS Bangor

  2 November

  5 November

  Rota

  HMS Exeter

  2 November

  19 November

  Santa Cruz

  HMS Edinburgh

  8 November

  11 November

  Malaga

  HMS Roebuck

  20 November

  24 November

  Barcelona

  HMS Nottingham

  21 November

  25 November

  Malaga

  RFA Oakleaf

  22 November

  27 November

  Vigo

  RFA Argus

  24 November

  26 November

  Malaga

  RFA Sir Bedivere

  26 November

  30 November

  Visits to Spanish ports by RN and RFA vessels During 2002

  Port

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  Barcelona

  HMS Beagle

  8 January

  11 January

  Rota

  HMS Exeter

  17 January

  19 January

  Rota

  HMS Norfolk

  18 January

  19 January

  Rota

  HMS Exeter

  19 January

  21 January

  Rota

  HMS Norfolk

  19 January

  23 January

  La Coruna

  RFA Argus

  15 February

  18 February

  Barcelona

  HMS Fearless

  7 March

  11 March

  Palma

  HMS Illustrious

  16 March

  20 March

  Malaga

  HMS Cornwall

  17 March

  21 March

  Las Palmas

  HMS Montrose

  19 March

  22 March

  Las Palmas

  HMS Newcastle

  19 March

  22 March

  Las Palmas

  RFA Grey Rover

  20 March

  25 March

  La Coruna

  RFA Argus

  19 April

  22 April

  Malaga

  RFA Fort Rosalie

  20 April

  24 April

  Cadiz

  HMS Grimsby

  20 April

  24 April

  Cartagena

  HMS Grimsby

  27 April

  8 May

  Barcelona

  HMS Sheffield

  4 May

  9 May

  Malaga

  HMS Grimsby

  17 May

  26 May

  Alicante

  HMS Ark Royal

  22 May

  27 May

  Malaga

  RFA Orangeleaf

  22 May

  27 May

  Valencia

  RFA Argus

  23 May

  26 May

  Cartagena

  HMS Sheffield

  24 May

  28 May

  Barcelona

  HMS Ocean

  25 May

  29 May

  Malaga

  RFA Fort George

  4 June

  9 June

  Rota

  HMS Sheffield

  7 June

  10 June

  Palma

  HMS Ark Royal

  9 June

  14 June

  Valencia

  RFA Orangeleaf

  10 June

  14 June

  La Coruna

  HMS Ledbury

  14 June

  17 June

  La Coruna

  HMS Dumbarton Castle

  15 June

  17 June

  Ibiza

  HMS Roebuck

  20 June

  23 June

  Gijon

  HMS Shetland

  20 June

  24 June

  Vigo

  HMS Ledbury

  21 June

  23 June

  Vigo

  HMS Dumbarton Castle

  21 June

  23 June

  Palma

  HMS Portland

  14 July

  20 July

  Rota

  HMS Norfolk

  14 July

  16 July

  Ibiza

  HMS Grimsby

  26 July

  29 July

  Algerciras

  RFA Brambleleaf

  7 August

  9 August

  Vigo

  RFA Brambleleaf

  11 August

  15 August

  Rota

  HMS Somerset

  27 August

  29 August

  Denia

  HMS Pembroke

  4 September

  6 September

  Rota

  HMS Somerset

  13 September

  17 September

  58W

  Visits to Spanish ports by RN and RFA vessels During 2002

  Port

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  Rota

  HMS Somerset

  25 September

  1 October

  Malaga

  RFA Sir Galahad

  25 October

  30 October

  Barcelona

  RFA Fort Victoria

  28 October

  2 November

  Barcelona

  HMS Ark Royal

  28 October

  2 November

  Algerciras

  RFA Brambleleaf

  16 November

  19 November

  Rota

  HMS Somerset

  13 December

  14 December

  Visits to Spanish ports by RN and RFA vessels between 1 January and 31 May 2003

  Port

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  Las Palmas

  MV Hartland Point

  5 January

  31 January

  Algerciras

  RFA Brambleleaf

  9 January

  12 January

  Alicante

  RFA Brambleleaf

  13 January

  13 January

  Algeciras

  RFA Oakleaf

  16 January

  20 January

  Alicante

  RFA Brambleleaf

  24 January

  25 January

  Palma

  HMS Ledbury

  31 January

  3 February

  Palma

  HMS Grimsby

  31 January

  3 February

  Rota

  HMS Cornwall

  17 March

  20 March

  Rota

  HMS Cornwall

  20 March

  21 March

  Rota

  HMS Cornwall

  21 March

  26 March

  Alicante

  HMS Cardiff

  24 March

  29 March

  El Ferrol

  RFA Wave Knight

  7 April

  9 April

  Palma

  HMS York

  29 April

  5 May

  Palma

  HMS Ark Royal

  29 April

  5 May

  Rota

  HMS Northumberland

  1 May

  2 May

  Cartagena

  HMS Northumberland

  4 May

  7 May

  Ibiza

  HMS Brocklesby

  8 May

  11 May

  Ibiza

  HMS Blyth

  8 May

  11 May

  Palma

  HMS Northumberland

  12 May

  14 May

  Rota

  HMS Ark Royal

  13 May

  13 May

  Villa Garcia de Arosa

  HMS Brocklesby

  15 May

  17 May

  Villa Garcia de Arosa

  HMS Blyth

  15 May

  17 May

  Barcelona

  RFA Fort Austin

  20 May

  23 May

  Palma

  HMS Roebuck

  30 May

  3 June

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels have visited Gibraltar since 1 January 2001. [119098]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following tables list visits to Gibraltar by Royal Navy and Royal Fleet Auxiliary vessels for the calendar years 2001 and 2002. For completeness details have also been provided for 2003 until end of May. Also included are the visits by MV Dart 10 and MV Hurst Point as part of the Ministry of Defence's Joint Rapid Reaction Force Ro-Ro capability. HMS Tireless was also alongside Gibraltar between 19 May 2000 and 7 May 2001 for repairs.

  Visits to Gibraltar by RN and RFA vessels during 2001

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  RFA Sea Centurion

  8 January 2001

  9 January 2001

  HMS Bridport

  17 January 2001

  18 January 2001

  HMS Richmond

  18 January 2001

  19 January 2001

  HMS Lancaster

  25 January 2001

  26 January 2001

  RFA Sea Centurion

  2 February 2001

  3 February 2001

  RFA Sea Centurion

  21 February 2001

  21 February 2001

  HMS Grafton

  9 March 2001

  12 March 2001

  RFA Sea Centurion

  14 March 2001

  16 March 2001

  HMS Cumberland

  15 March 2001

  17 March 2001

  HMS Grafton

  16 March 2001

  19 March 2001

  HMS Gloucester

  23 March 2001

  26 March 2001

  RFA Fort Rosalie

  30 March 2001

  30 April 2001

  HMS Scott

  1 April 2001

  2 April 2001

  RFA Oakleaf

  21 April 2001

  30 April 2001

  HMS Somerset

  21 April 2001

  24 April 2001

  HMS Scott

  27 April 2001

  8 May 2001

  HMS Scott

  10 May 2001

  30 May 2001

  HMS Grafton

  1 June 2001

  4 June 2001

  HMS Northumberland

  8 June 2001

  11 June 2001

  HMS Grafton

  8 June 2001

  8 June 2001

  59W

  Visits to Gibraltar by RN and RFA vessels during 2001

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  HMS Scott

  8 June 2001

  13 June 2001

  RFA Sea Crusader

  20 June 2001

  20 June 2001

  RFA Orangeleaf

  12 July 2001

  14 July 2001

  HMS Lancaster

  20 July 2001

  21 July 2001

  MV Dart 10

  20 July 2001

  20 July 2001

  HMS Richmond

  29 July 2001

  30 July 2001

  RFA Brambleleaf

  5 August 2001

  6 August 2001

  RFA Brambleleaf

  17 August 2001

  23 August 2001

  RFA Oakleaf

  17 August 2001

  27 August 2001

  HMS Ocean

  5 September 2001

  5 September 2001

  HMS Argyll

  21 September 2001

  24 September 2001

  RFA Brambleleaf

  30 September 2001

  1 October 2001

  HMS Gloucester

  13 October 2001

  15 October 2001

  RFA Sea Crusader

  20 October 2001

  21 October 2001

  HMS Scott

  17 November 2001

  19 November 2001

  RFA Fort Austin

  21 November 2001

  27 November 2001

  HMS Scott

  22 November 2001

  24 November 2001

  RFA Fort George

  1 December 2001

  1 December 2001

  HMS Superb

  6 December 2001

  9 December 2001

  HMS Glasgow

  6 December 2001

  10 December 2001

  HMS Quorn

  7 December 2001

  9 December 2001

  HMS Inverness

  7 December 2001

  8 December 2001

  HMS Northumberland

  8 December 2001

  10 December 2001

  HMS Cattistock

  8 December 2001

  9 December 2001

  HMS Walney

  8 December 2001

  10 December 2001

  HMS Bangor

  10 December 2001

  11 December 2001

  RFA Oakleaf

  17 December 2001

  7 January 2002

  Visits to Gibraltar by RN and RFA vessels during 2002

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  RFA Fort Victoria

  10 January 2002

  10 January 2002

  RFA Oakleaf

  18 January 2002

  25 January 2002

  HMS Grimsby

  19 January 2002

  22 January 2002

  HMS Portland

  21 January 2002

  22 January 2002

  MV Dart 10

  24 January 2002

  25 January 2002

  HMS Grimsby

  25 January 2002

  28 January 2002

  HMS York

  1 February 2002

  5 February 2002

  RFA Sea Crusader

  3 February 2002

  4 February 2002

  HMS Sheffield

  9 February 2002

  10 February 2002

  HMS Grimsby

  15 February 2002

  18 February 2002

  HMS Ocean

  15 February 2002

  17 February 2002

  HMS Campbeltown

  15 February 2002

  17 February 2002

  HMS Chatham

  23 February 2002

  25 February 2002

  HMS Kent

  3 March 2002

  3 March 2002

  HMS Fort Austin

  4 March 2002

  4 March 2002

  RFA Orangeleaf

  8 March 2002

  14 March 2002

  HMS Glasgow

  12 March 2002

  15 March 2002

  RFA Brambleleaf

  16 March 2002

  21 March 2002

  HMS Glasgow

  17 March 2002

  18 March 2002

  MV Dart 10

  18 March 2002

  18 March 2002

  RFA Sea Crusader

  22 March 2002

  23 March 2002

  HMS Nottingham

  22 March 2002

  23 March 2002

  HMS Scott

  12 April 2002

  12 April 2002

  RFA Sea Crusader

  22 April 2002

  23 April 2002

  HMS Argyll

  2 June 2002

  2 June 2002

  HMS Cardiff

  7 June 2002

  10 June 2002

  HMS Lancaster

  8 June 2002

  10 June 2002

  HMS Cardiff

  10 June 2002

  11 June 2002

  HMS Cumberland

  24 June 2002

  25 June 2002

  HMS Campbeltown

  4 August 2002

  5 August 2002

  HMS Sheffield

  17 August 2002

  17 August 2002

  RFA Black Rover

  23 August 2002

  26 August 2002

  RFA Gold Rover

  23 August 2002

  26 August 2002

  HMS Kent

  7 September 2002

  9 September 2002

  RFA Orangeleaf

  11 September 2002

  19 September 2002

  HMS Edinburgh

  12 September 2002

  13 September 2002

  RFA Sir Bedivere

  16 September 2002

  17 September 2002

  MV Hurst Point

  16 September 2002

  16 September 2002

  HMS Bangor

  19 September 2002

  23 September 2002

  HMS Blyth

  19 September 2002

  23 September 2002

  HMS Brocklesby

  19 September 2002

  19 September 2002

  HMS Chatham

  19 September 2002

  19 September 2002

  HMS Sanddown

  19 September 2002

  23 September 2002

  HMS Ark Royal

  20 September 2002

  22 September 2002

  60W

  Visits to Gibraltar by RN and RFA vessels during 2002

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  HMS Cardiff

  8 October 2002

  8 October 2002

  RFA Orangeleaf

  25 October 2002

  4 November 2002

  HMS Scott

  28 October 2002

  4 November 2002

  RFA Orangeleaf

  8 November 2002

  11 November 2002

  HMS Scott

  11 November 2002

  22 November 2002

  HMS Roebuk

  15 November 2002

  18 November 2002

  HMS Argyll

  21 November 2002

  23 November 2002

  HMS Southampton

  28 November 2002

  29 November 2002

  HMS Southampton

  29 November 2002

  2 December 2002

  HMS Scott

  30 November 2002

  4 December 2002

  HMS Southampton

  6 December 2002

  7 December 2002

  HMS Pembroke

  12 December 2002

  13 December 2002

  MV Dart 10

  16 December 2002

  18 December 2002

  Visits to Gibraltar by RN and RFA vessels between 1 January 2003 and 31 May 2003

  Ship

  Arrival

  Departure

  RFA Orangeleaf

  13 January 2003

  13 January 2003

  RFA Orangeleaf

  24 January 2003

  31 March 2003

  HMS Westminster

  31 January 2003

  1 February 2003

  HMS Westminster

  5 February 2003

  6 February 2003

  HMS Richmond

  14 February 2003

  17 February 2003

  HMS Westminster

  18 February 2003

  21 February 2003

  HMS Westminster

  28 February 2003

  3 March 2003

  HMS Westminster

  7 March 2003

  10 March 2003

  HMS Turbulent

  7 April 2003

  12 April 2003

  RFA Fort Victoria

  2 May 2003

  5 May 2003

  RFA Fort Victoria

  6 May 2003

  8 May 2003

  HMS Scott

  10 May 2003

  10 May 2003

  RFA Gold Rover

  16 May 2003

  17 May 2003

  RFA Argus

  20 May 2003

  24 May 2003

  HMS Ocean

  21 May 2003

  24 May 2003

  HMS Edinburgh

  21 May 2003

  24 May 2003

  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which Royal Navy ships are in dry docks. [119176]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following Royal Navy vessels are currently in dry dock:

  HMS Vanguard

  HMS Trafalgar

  HMS Talent

  HMS Illustrious

  HMS Nottingham

  HMS Argyll

  HMS Montrose

  HMS Dulverton

  HMS Hurworth

  Sri Lanka
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the meetings held between his Department and the Sri Lankan Government in each of the past five years. [117516]

  Mr. Ingram
  The information is not available in the format requested. The British Defence Adviser Colombo and his staff meet regularly with representatives of the Sri Lankan Government and Ministry of Defence to discuss a number of issues. In addition, a number of MOD officials have met from time to time over the past five years with Sri Lankan Ministers and officials, both in the UK and in Sri Lanka.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Teachers' Dress
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will issue guidance on suitable dress for teachers. [119662]

  Mr. Miliband
  We have no plans to issue guidance on suitable dress for teachers.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Female GPs
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Minister for Women what action she has taken to ensure equality in the proportion of female GPs to male GPs in partnerships. [118503]

  Mr. Hutton
  I have been asked to reply.

  Partnerships provide a legal framework within which general practitioners, as independent, self-employed professionals, organise themselves to provide general and personal medical services. The Government is committed to equality for female GPs and the new general medical services contract, if accepted, facilitates good human resource practice and improved working lives for all general practitioners, including a wider range of employment options.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Conditional Fee Agreement
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the benefits to the public of the new form of conditional fee agreement introduced by his Department on 2 June. [118709]

  Mr. Lammy
  The new form of conditional fee agreement (CFA) will for the first time enable people to enter into lawful agreement with their solicitor that in the event of winning the action the claimant will receive all of their damages and the solicitor will recover their reasonable fees from the losing party. People will have a clear choice between solicitors offering simple CFAs of this type and those offering other forms of CFA or funding arrangement. The simplified CFA is the first step in a programme the Government will be taking forward with key stakeholders including consumer groups to review and simplify the overall CFA regime. We would like to see a regime that it is easier for the consumer to understand and for solicitors to use and against which it is harder for mischievous challenges to be brought. The Government will be publishing a general consultation paper in the next few weeks and will be consulting widely to identify views and the specific actions needed.

  Publicly Funded Legal Work
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many firms were franchised to carry out publicly funded legal work in 2000; and what the most recent corresponding figure is. [117525]
  62W
  Mr. Lammy
  It is not possible to provide an answer to the question in the terms asked.

  The Legal Aid Board's 'Legal Aid Franchise Quality Assurance Standard' (LAFQAS), which is also known as a franchise, was replaced by the Legal Services Commission's (Legal Services Commission) Specialist Quality Mark (SQM) in April 2002. All franchised organisations were passported through to the SQM level. Solicitors' offices can hold both a General Civil and Criminal contract under these standards.

  As at 31 March 2000, 4,010 solicitors' offices and other organisations held franchises with the Legal Aid Board. As at 4 June 2003, 5,994 solicitors' offices and other organisations held the SQM.

  Solicitors' offices accounted for the majority of these organisations.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Probate Office
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment the Department has made of the effect on the workload of the Probate Office of wills being executed without professional advice. [119302]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Department does not keep records of the effect that proving home made wills has on the Probate Registries' workload.

  It is the view of the Probate Registries that they get a similar amount of problems with professionally drawn wills as from home made wills.

  Administration Orders
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when the amendments set out in section 13 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 allowing wider use of Administration Orders at county court level to resolve cases of debt without recourse to bankruptcy will be implemented. [118426]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government have concluded that section 13 will not be implemented in its current form, due to concerns over its feasibility. While some aspects of section 13, such as the three year time limit on orders, are welcome in that they would provide certainty for both debtors and creditors, its implementation would remove the current parameters to the scheme while not providing any safeguards, such as the opportunity to deal with physical assets and investigation into misconduct. The Government are consequently considering a wide range of options for reform in this area and will publish a paper on options for change later in the year. In the meantime, I refer my right hon. Friend to the White Paper "Effective Enforcement" issued by my Department in March 2003 for further details.

  Lawyers Establishment Directive
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department on what date each member of the European Union implemented the Lawyers Establishment
  63W
  Directive 98/5/EC; and what representations he has made about the continuing failure of France to implement it. [118221]

  Mr. Lammy
  The dates on which Directive 98/5/EC was implemented by the various states of the European Union are as follows:

  Date

  Austria

  23 May 2000

  Denmark

  7 April 2000

  Finland

  1 January 2000

  Germany

  14 March 2000

  Greece

  23 May 2000

  Italy

  18 January 2000

  Spain

  5 August 2001

  Sweden

  1 January 2000

  Belgium, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and Portugal have yet to complete formal implementation procedures. Neither France nor Ireland has yet embarked on the process.

  Continuing representations made by and on behalf of the legal profession have, with the co-operation of the Paris Bar, secured certain of the benefits which associated with implementation of the Directive. In the light of this and of the action taken by the European Commission, before the European Court of Justice, the Government have taken the view that separate representations from them would not add anything at the present time; however we are continuing to monitor the position.

PRIME MINISTER

  EU Constitution White Paper
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to publish a White Paper on the EU constitution, setting out the Government's response to its proposals. [119113]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government intend to publish a White Paper on the future of Europe in advance of the Intergovernmental Conference which is due to start later this year.

  G8 Summit
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Prime Minister what measures are in place to ensure that the pledges made at the G8 summit are implemented. [119194]

  The Prime Minister
  G8 governments are collectively and individually responsible for the commitments that they make. Appropriate Government Departments will implement the actions agreed by the UK at the G8 summit in Evian.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Prime Minister what decisions were taken at the recent G8 Summit(a) to facilitate the transfer of technology to tackle HIV and (b) to improve water supplies in the developing world. [119195]

  The Prime Minister
  On technology to tackle HIV/ AIDS, I refer my hon. Friend to my statement on the G8 Summit on 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 158.
  64W
  The G8 Summit adopted an Action Plan for Water, calling on the international community to redouble its efforts in the water sector. In all, 16 action plans and statements were released at the summit, copies of which have been placed in the House Libraries.

  Honours
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Prime Minister how many residents of Thurrock have been awarded(a) OBEs and (b) CBEs in the past five years; and if he will make a statement. [118910]

  The Prime Minister
  Statistics on honours are not held on a district basis as my hon. Friend has requested.

  Iraq
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he has received a copy of the September 2002 report by the Pentagon Defense Intelligence Agency on Iraq's military capabilities. [118953]

  The Prime Minister
  We have access to intelligence from our allies but under exemption 1(c) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information it is established practice not to disclose information received in confidence from foreign Governments.

  David Winnick
  To ask the Prime Minister if the Government will publish an account of the crimes against humanity carried out by the last regime in Iraq. [119474]

  The Prime Minister
  In December 2002 the Foreign and Commonwealth Office published "Saddam Hussein—Crimes and Human Rights Abuses", which documented the human rights record under Saddam Hussein's regime. Copies were made available in the House Libraries. It set out Saddam's record on torture, the treatment of women, prison conditions, arbitrary and summary killings, the persecution of the Kurds and Shia, the harassment of opposition figures outside Iraq and the occupation of Kuwait.

  Since the fall of the regime, evidence has emerged, including for example the discovery of mass graves, revealing torture and killing by the regime.

  We have always believed that those who have been responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes should be brought to justice and that the Iraqi people should play key role in bringing those responsible to justice, with international help.

  The security of evidence, which may be linked to war crimes or crimes against humanity, is a priority. Coalition forces have been tasked with securing and protecting evidence of such crimes as they encounter it, to hand over to the relevant prosecuting authority at the appropriate time.

  I have appointed Ann Clwyd MP as my Special Envoy to Iraq on Human Rights to look into this matter and report back to me with recommendations.

  Pharmaceutical Products
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact on African development of the United States' decision not to relax
  65W
  the rules on pharmaceutical patents; and what discussions he has had with President Bush on this matter. [119193]

  The Prime Minister
  The issue of how WTO Members with insufficient manufacturing capacity in the pharmaceutical sector can make effective use of the compulsory licensing provisions of the WTO TRIPS Agreement is still under discussion. We hope to see an effective solution agreed by the next WTO ministerial in Cancun in September.

  Subsidised Farm Exports
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Prime Minister what discussions he has had with the French President about his proposal to halt the export of subsidised European and American farm products to Africa. [119189]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave during my statement on the G8 Summit to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Dr. Tonge) on 4 June 2003,Official Report, column 171.

HEALTH

  Agency Nurses
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hours were worked by agency nurses in the last week of September 2002, broken down by payscale. [116945]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally.

  Ambulances
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many ambulance service vehicle road accidents there were in(a) England, (b) each NHS region and (c) each strategic health authority in each year since 1997. [116944]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have been asked to reply.

  The tables below give the number of accidents involving at least one ambulance service vehicle in (a) England, (b) each Government Office Region, and (c) each strategic health authority, in each year from 1997 to 2001. Figures are not available on the basis of the old Department of Health Regional Offices.

  Number of accidents involving an ambulance by Government Office Region: England, 1997–2001

  Accidents

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  England

  271

  323

  282

  340

  303

  Government Office Regions

  North East

  3

  13

  13

  18

  16

  North West

  29

  38

  32

  43

  33

  Merseyside

  18

  11

  11

  14

  10

  Yorkshire/Humberside

  19

  35

  29

  51

  49

  East Midlands

  25

  27

  15

  23

  23

  West Midlands

  26

  26

  26

  35

  27

  Eastern

  23

  31

  37

  28

  27

  South East

  42

  45

  42

  54

  42

  London

  59

  75

  61

  45

  46

  Southwest

  27

  22

  16

  29

  30

  Number of accidents involving an ambulance by Strategic Health Authority: England, 1997–2001

  Accidents

  Strategic Health Authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Avon, Gloucs and Wiltshire

  13

  12

  6

  9

  14

  Beds and Herts

  6

  10

  12

  15

  7

  Birmingham and Black Country

  8

  10

  10

  23

  15

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  23

  15

  17

  17

  11

  Durham and Tees Valley

  0

  3

  5

  7

  6

  Coventry, Warwickshire, Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  4

  9

  9

  4

  7

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  10

  13

  8

  21

  10

  68W

  Number of accidents involving an ambulance by Strategic Health Authority: England, 1997–2001

  Accidents

  Strategic Health Authority

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Dorset and Somerset

  2

  5

  3

  11

  7

  Essex

  9

  8

  8

  7

  11

  Gt Manchester

  14

  21

  18

  19

  22

  Hampshire and IOW

  7

  12

  8

  13

  10

  Kent and Medway

  11

  5

  8

  10

  9

  Leicestershire, Northants and Rutland

  7

  8

  6

  6

  6

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambs

  8

  13

  17

  6

  9

  N and E Yorkshire and N Lines

  7

  11

  13

  18

  12

  N Central London

  13

  15

  12

  11

  11

  NE London

  9

  22

  16

  13

  5

  NW London

  17

  23

  9

  7

  18

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  3

  10

  8

  11

  10

  Shropshire and Staffs

  14

  7

  7

  8

  5

  SE London

  14

  8

  14

  6

  6

  SW London

  6

  7

  10

  8

  6

  SW Peninsula

  12

  5

  7

  9

  9

  S Yorkshire

  3

  6

  3

  4

  15

  Trent

  18

  19

  9

  17

  17

  W Yorkshire

  9

  18

  13

  29

  22

  Surrey & Sussex

  16

  17

  16

  21

  19

  Thames Valley

  8

  11

  10

  10

  4

  England

  271

  323

  282

  340

  303

  Consultant Neurologists
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the waiting times are for follow-up appointments for consultant neurologists, broken down by Strategic Health Authority [118767]

  Mr. Hutton
  The current out-patient waiting time standard is that all patients should be seen for their first out-patient appointment within 21 weeks of the general practitioner referral.

  Waiting time data for follow-up appointments or consultant to consultant referrals is not collected centrally.

  Departmental Website
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what actions he has taken or is taking to ensure that the websites of his Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are accessible to partially sighted and blind people; and if he will make a statement. [117352]

  Mr. Hutton
  The websites managed by the Department of Health seek to follow wherever possible the guidelines from the Office of the e-Envoy which advise public sector websites how to be accessible to partially sighted and blind people. In addition, the Department's website (www.doh.gov.uk), www.nhs.uk and NHS Direct Online regularly commission usability and accessibility research to ensure they are meeting the needs of their audiences.

  The Department always provides alternative routes to the information it provides online. Hard copy publications are available on request and there is a customer services call centre.
  69W
  The Department of Health is currently working in partnership with the Office of the e-Envoy to migrate the majority of its website (www.doh.gov.uk) onto a new platform which has been designed to meet W3C level 'A' compliance and the Royal National Institute for the Blind, 'See it right' standards.

  Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (www.mhra.gov.uk)

  The MHRA website is scheduled for early redevelopment to integrate fully the existing websites of the former agencies. MHRA will assess accessibility as an integral part of that development.

  NHS Estates (www.nhsestates.gov.uk)

  All downloadable Adobe Acrobat files provided on the website are in the process of being speech enabled using PDFAIoud on an Adobe Acrobat plug-in. NHS Estates are also currently evaluating a product called BrowseAloud that will speech enable the text on the main agency website pages.

  NHS Pensions Agency (www.nhspa.gov.uk)

  Resource and funding constraints have meant that the NHS Pensions Agency website is not currently fully accessible. However, the Pensions Online service, which the NHSPA provides to NHS Employers over the NHS Net, has been refreshed to remove frames, tables and buttons to assist partially sighted and blind visitors. The NHSPA website will be redeveloped in line with these changes and all ongoing and future website redesigns will include improvements in accessibility.

  NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency (www.pasa.doh.gov.uk)

  The NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency adheres to the NHS identity guidelines in all forms of communication, including those standards set for communication via the website. Although PASA is still a relatively new organisation, the website has grown rapidly. Its accessibility is currently being audited and reviewed to see where it can be improved.

  Information regarding Non-Departmental Public Bodies could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Elderly People (Tooting)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on funding for care of the elderly living in the Tooting constituency. [117158]

  Mr. Hutton
  Primary care trusts and local authorities are responsible for allocating their resources to meet local needs and achieve national standards.

  Services for older people are a national priority area for health and social care. London PCTs have recently produced three-year local delivery plans and social services delivery improvement statements, outlining proposals to meet targets and capacity assumptions as set out in the Planning and Performance Framework.

  Wandsworth PCT and Wandsworth social services which cover the Tooting area, are working in close collaboration to further develop services for older people and implement the national service framework for older people. Each organisation has maintained previous levels of investment in older people's services in the current year and identified some additional moneys to meet anticipated cost pressure arising from increased demand for services and/or new developments.
  70W
  The growth in Wandsworth PCT allocations, for all services, is as follows:

  Year

  Annual increase (— million)

  Annual increase (Percentage)

  2003–04

  21.1

  8.3

  2004–05

  27.3

  9.89

  2005–06

  29.2

  9.62

  3 year total

  77.6

  30.5

  Foundation Hospitals
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how the Department is intending to remove the funding advantages that would be given to foundation hospitals in the south east, and other areas of high prices, from the sale of land and property. [106809]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 8 April 2003]: The establishment of the national health service foundation trusts will not reduce the amount of capital available for developing NHS services for NHS patients. Proceeds from NHS trust asset sales are not added to central funds but instead remain in the local health economy. The creation of NHS foundation trusts will not therefore reduce the central funding available to the NHS. There will be no unfair funding advantages that will accrue to asset rich trusts.

  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the likely effect on recruitment in the NHS in Wales of the establishment of foundation hospitals in England adjacent to the Welsh border. [118044]

  Mr. Hutton
  Staff already move between national health service organisations throughout the United Kingdom. NHS foundation trusts established in England will operate the same national pay and conditions of service agreements under Agenda for Change as other parts of the NHS, including NHS bodies in Wales.

  Health Care Inequalities
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment his Department has made of inequality in healthcare provision. [118718]

  Mr. Hutton
  A weighted capitation formula is used to determine primary care trusts' (PCTs) target shares of available resources to enable them to commission similar levels of healthcare for populations with similar healthcare needs.

  From 2003–04, the healthcare need element of the formula has been updated to use better measures of deprivation which are now available.

  It is for PCTs, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health, tackling health inequalities and modernising services.

  Medical Treatment Overseas
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women living in England and Wales have travelled to another European country for medical treatment during the last 12 months. [117161]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients can be referred for treatment abroad under the European-wide health care coordination regulations (the E112-scheme) or through direct referral from their national health service trust.

  In the 12-month period from 1 June 2002 until 31 May 2003, 253 patients received treatment abroad through the direct referral route sand 1,050 patients received authorisation for treatment abroad through the El 12 scheme.

  Information regarding the gender breakdown of these patients is not available centrally.

  NHS Redundancies
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in the NHS in the last two financial years have been made redundant with redundancy packages valued at(a) —50,000 to —100,000; (b) —100,000 to —250,000; (c) 250,000 to —500,000; and (d) more than —500,000. [117975]

  Mr. Hutton
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on 23 January 2003,Official Report, column 480W.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services: Administration and Estates Staff, England, as at September 2001

  Headcount

  Central functions

  Hotel property and estates

  STT1 support

  Clinical support

  Ambulance service support

  All areas of work

  Senior Manager

  7,801

  451

  115

  1,302

  71

  9,740

  Manager

  13,108

  1,527

  391

  2,333

  325

  17,684

  Clerical and administrative

  81,439

  8,516

  13,374

  77,861

  3,039

  184,229

  Total administrative

  102,348

  10,494

  13,880

  81,494

  3,435

  211,653

  1 STT—Scientific, Therapeutic and Technical.

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  Source:

  Department of Health 2001 non-medical workforce census.

  Non-NHS Medical Staff
  Dr. Evan Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent on non-NHS medical staff in(a) England and (b) each strategic health authority in each of the last six years; and if he will make a statement. [114421]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested has been placed in the Library. Expenditure data for strategic health authorities (SHA) are not yet available. Provisional SHA figures for their first year of establishment are expected to be available from October 2003 and fully validated data from February 2004. Expenditure data for non-national health service

  NHS Staff
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how the NHS categorises administrative staff; [117391]

  (2) how many (a) painters, (b) gardeners and (c) administrative staff the NHS employs. [117392]

  Mr. Hutton
  Non-medical staff, including administrative staff, are classified according to a simplified set of occupation codes introduced in 1995. The occupation codes are based on what staff do and make no reference to payscale information. This allows staff in particular work sectors of the national health service to be identified in a consistent way. The relevant groups for administrative staff are:senior managers—staff at executive level (for example, chief executive and board members) plus those managers who report directly to the members of the executive;
  managers—service and functional managers who report directly to senior managers: and
  administrative and clerical staff—more junior managers and supervisors as well as those involved principally in administrative duties within the NHS, with no direct patient contact.

  Administrative staff work across all the functions in the NHS, including those working in direct support of clinical staff, such as medical secretaries, as well as those who work in hotel and catering and central services such as human resources and finance.

  Painters and gardeners are included within the 'hotel, property and estates' area of work within the `maintenance and works' staff group, of whom there were 11,674 employed in the NHS as at September 2001. A breakdown of administrative staff areas of work is shown in the table.

  medical staff expenditure broken down by individual health authorities and primary care trusts are in the Library.

  Overseas Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the number of overseas nurses his Department plans to recruit to diagnostic treatment centres. [114984]

  Mr. Hutton
  The recruitment of staff into national health service run diagnosis and treatment centres (DTCs)—is a matter for the NHS trust managing the unit. We expect NHS trusts to explore the full range of options available to them, including the recruitment of overseas nurses.
  73W
  The recruitment of staff for independent sector-run DTCs will be a matter for successful bidders. As part of the current procurement, bidders are asked to propose staffing solutions for these new units that meet a core objective of the programme to secure a genuine increase in capacity, including workforce capacity. Bidders are asked to describe their approach to international recruitment of staff and how they will abide by the Code of Practice for NHS employers involved in the international recruitment of healthcare professionals. The exact number of non-NHS staff, including those from overseas, by the independent sector will depend on local circumstances.

  Paediatricians
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many trained paediatric consultants work in the NHS. [117767]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows the number of hospital and hospital dental consultants in the paediatric specialties working in the national health service in England at 31 March 2002. Since September 1997, the number of consultants within the paediatrics group has risen by 29 per cent.

  Hospital medical and hospital dental consultants with paediatric specialties

  England, as at 31 March 2002

  Numbers (headcount)

  Paediatric Group

  1,586

  of which:

  Paediatric cordiology

  54

  Paediatrics

  1,532

  Paediatric Surgery

  24

  Paediatric dentistry

  119

  Note:

  Only consultant and GP data was collected in the March 2002 mini-census.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census.

  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many paediatrically trained doctors working in the NHS there are per head of population. [117770]

  Mr. Hutton
  The standard ratio used by the Department of Health is per 100,000 of population.

  The table shows how many doctors, trained in the paediatric specialties, were working in the National Health Service as at 30 September 2001, per head of population and per 100,000 of the population.

  In addition, there are a number of general practitioners who have undergone training in paediatrics as part of their general practice training.

  Hospital medical and hospital dental doctors with paediatric specialities by grade

  England, as at 30 September 2001

  Headcount

  Per head population

  Per 100,000 head population

  All Grades

  Paediatric Group

  5,070

  0.0001031

  10.31

  Of which:

  Paediatric cardiology

  68

  0.0000014

  0.14

  Paediatrics

  5,002

  0.0001017

  10.17

  Paediatric Surgery

  285

  0.0000058

  0.58

  Paediatric dentistry

  64

  0.0000013

  0.13

  74W

  Hospital medical and hospital dental doctors with paediatric specialities by grade

  England, as at 30 September 2001

  Headcount

  Per head population

  Per 100,000 head population

  Of which:

  Consultants

  Paediatric Group

  1,507

  0.0000306

  3.06

  Of which:

  Paediatric cardiology

  29

  0.0000006

  0.06

  Paediatrics

  1,478

  0.0000301

  3.01

  Paediatric surgery

  114

  0.0000023

  0.23

  Paediatric dentistry

  22

  0.0000004

  0.04

  Associate specialists and staff grades

  Paediatric Group

  602

  0.0000122

  1.22

  Of which:

  Paediatric cardiology

  —

  —

  —

  Paediatrics

  602

  0.0000122

  1.22

  Paediatric surgery

  10

  0.0000002

  0.02

  Paediatric dentistry

  4

  0.0000001

  0.01

  Doctors in training1

  Paediatric Group

  2,875

  0.0000585

  5.85

  Of which:

  Paediatric cardiology

  39

  0.0000008

  0.08

  Paediatrics

  2,836

  0.0000577

  5.77

  Paediatric surgery

  159

  0.0000032

  0.32

  Paediatric dentistry

  24

  0.0000005

  0.05

  1 Comprises registrar group, senior house officers and house officers.

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census 2001 ONS Population Census

  Paediatric Nurses
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many nurses with specialist qualifications in paediatric medicine are working in the NHS; [117768]

  (2) how many NHS nurses with specialist qualifications in paediatric medicine there are per head of population. [117769]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of nurses with specialist qualifications in paediatric medicine employed in the national health service is not collected centrally.

  As at September 2001, the latest available data, there were 17,640 nurses employed in the paediatric nursing area of work. This represents 36 per 100,000 population and is a 15 per cent. increase since 1997.

  Primary Care Resources
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he is proposing to ensure that all primary care resources allocated to PCTs are passed to front line patient care providers. [117413]

  Mr. Hutton
  If the new general medical services contract is accepted by the profession, expenditure on primary care will increase from —5 billion in 2002–03 to —6.8 billion in 2005–06. There will be a Gross Investment Guarantee that these resources will be delivered. To ensure delivery, the pricing of the contract could be adjusted.
  75W
  A joint Health Departments and British Medical Association technical steering committee will monitor the level of investment. This monitoring will include investment in enhanced services, which will also be performance managed by strategic health authorities.

  Primary Care Trusts
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when setting weighted capitation targets for resource allocation to primary care trusts, what account is taken of the unavoidable geographical variations in the cost of providing services. [118952]

  Mr. Hutton
  The weighted capitation formula used to inform the allocation of resources to primary care trusts includes a market forces factor. The market forces factor takes account of unavoidable variations in the cost of providing services due to location.

  Further information on the market forces factor is available in "Resource Allocation: Weighted Capitation Formula". Copies are available in the Library.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many numbered training places were available for trainee consultants specialising in rheumatoid arthritis in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [118454]

  Mr. Hutton
  Rheumatoid arthritis is a condition covered by the rheumatology specialty. We are unable to determine how many trainee specialists, with national training numbers (NTNs) in rheumatology, specialise in rheumatoid arthritis.

  The table shows the number of NTNs in rheumatology in each of the last five years.

  Numbered training places in Rheumatology 1998 to 2002

  Year1

  Number of numbered training places

  19982

  185

  19992

  188

  20002

  183

  2001

  198

  2002

  206

  1 As of March

  2 May be missing small number of unassigned Numbered Training Places

  For 2003–04, trusts will have the opportunity to create up to 40 additional locally funded specialist registrar (NTN) training opportunities in rheumatology.

  Between September 1997 and March 2002, the number of consultants in rheumatology increased by 27 per cent.

  School Nurses
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many school nurses there were in each year since 1997. [117576]
  76W
  Mr. Hutton
  Separate information on the number of school nurses employed in the national health service is not collected centrally.

  Between 1997 and 2001, the number of qualified nurses employed in community services, which includes most school nurses, has increased by 6,500, or 14 per cent., to 52,400.

  Somali People
  Jeremy Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimates he has made of the number of Somali-speaking people who are(a) registered with GPs in each London health district and (b) the number who cannot be placed on the GPs' register. [117692]

  Mr. Hutton
  Anyone who is ordinarily resident in the United Kingdom is entitled to register with a general practitioner for general medical senvices or with a personal medical services (PMS) pilot provider to receive PMS. A person is 'ordinarily resident' for this purpose if lawfully living in the UK for a settled purpose for at least six months. Anyone coming to live in this country on this basis would qualify as ordinarily resident.

  If a person is having difficulties registering with a GP, they should contact their local primary care trust (PCT), which will be able to provide a list of doctors to whom they can apply. PCTs also have the power to allocate a person to a GP.

  St. George's, Tooting
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funding his Department has given to St. George's Hospital NHS Trust, Tooting since May 1997. [118929]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service trusts do not normally receive funding from the Department of Health but receive income for service provision from primary care trusts. The figure given is the total income, including all income from activities and all other operating income, for St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust.

  Income for the latest five years for St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust, for which figures are available, is shown in the table.

  —000

  Total income

  2001–02

  251,017

  2000–01

  223,195

  1999–2000

  227,622

  1998–99

  185,927

  1997–98

  173,135

  Source:

  Audited summarization schedules of the St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust 1997–98 to 2001–02.

  Theft (Hospitals)
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many instances of theft from corpses in NHS hospitals were recorded in each of the last five years for which there are records. [118183]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not routinely collected centrally.

  Private Hospital Invoices
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how invoices for operations carried out in private hospitals are raised. [117199]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not held centrally. The arrangements for invoicing are the commercial responsibility of individual private hospitals.

  (a) Attacks on persons involved in democratic politics 1 January 2003 to date

  16 April

  An explosive device consisting of 2 pipe bombs attached to a gas cylinder was placed outside the constituency offices of Nigel Dodds MP for Belfast, North. The attack was subsequently claimed by CIRA.

  17 April

  The unknown occupant of a van, which drew up alongside Nigel Dodds MP on the Limestone Road, used abusive and threatening language.

  12 May

  A parcel bomb was sent to the right hon. David Trimble MP at the Offices of the UUP Headquarters, Holy wood Road, Belfast. Two shotgun cartridges were to be ignited by matches but only the matches ignited. RIRA claimed responsibility for the attack.

  (b) Attacks on the property of those involved in democratic politics 1 January 2003 to date

  16 January

  An elaborate hoax device was placed outside the home of Mrs Brid Rodgers in Craigavon. Police believe this was an attempt by local youths to draw the police into the area to initiate some form of riot or other attack on the security forces.

  18 February

  Bomb hoax at Sinn Fein Offices on Andersonstown Road, Belfast. The call was made by a person claiming to be from the Continuity IRA.

  Bomb hoax at Sinn Fein Offices on Sevastopol Street, Belfast. The timing suggests that the two incidents were linked. Nothing was found in either incident.

  25 March

  There was an attack on the home of Anne Bell, SDLP Councillor and member of Strabane District Policing Partnership. A car belonging to Councillor Bell's daughter was destroyed by arson attack; an accelerant is believed to have been used. It is believed dissident republicans were responsible.

  Call Centres
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what financial incentives have been made available by Government agencies to businesses wishing to establish call centres in the Belfast area; and whether these incentives are available to entrepreneurs in other parts of Northern Ireland. [109990]

  Mr. Pearson
  Selective Financial Assistance toward the establishment and development of 16 customer contact centres within the Belfast area has been provided by Invest NI and its predecessor agencies. The level of assistance is negotiable on a case-by-case basis and while a full range of financial instruments have been used, assistance is primarily offered by way of revenue grants that are earned by performance. The full range of Invest NI assistance is available to companies wishing to establish in all parts of Northern Ireland.

  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many call centres have been established in Northern Ireland with Government financial assistance; at what location; and how many jobs have been created as a result. [109991]

  Mr. Pearson
  28 companies in the contact centre sector are either currently in receipt of, or have an offer of, government assistance to establish operations in

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Attacks on Politicians
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list the attacks on(a) the person and (b) the property of those involved in democratic politics in Northern Ireland since 1 January, broken down by (i) the nature of the attack, (ii) the weapon or amount and type of explosive used and (iii) the judgement of the PSNI as to the organisation responsible. [115898]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government unreservedly condemns all attacks on the democratic process. The following attacks were carried out on those involved in democratic politics since 1 January 2003:

  Northern Ireland. Current employment among these companies is 7,274 people, with a projected employment level of 9,831 by the end of 2004. The geographical breakdown of site locations is as follows: Belfast 16; Londonderry 3; Newry 3; Portadown 2; Bangor 2; Larne 1 and Armagh 1.

  Castlereagh Break-in
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he will make a statement on the findings of the Chilcot Report into the break-in at Police Special Branch Castlereagh station on 17 March 2002. [118442]

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the expected date is for the delivery to Government of the Chilcot Report into the break-in at Castlereagh on 17 March 2002. [117739]

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he expects to receive the Chilcot Report into the break-in at the Castlereagh police complex. [118435]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Sir John Chilcot has not yet finally completed his report into the break-in at Castlereagh Police Station. I will inform the House when I have received the report.

  CCTV
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what public funding is available to extend the coverage of the CCTV network within(a) Belfast City Centre and (b) other parts of the South Belfast District Command Unit of PSNI. [111218]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government consider that CCTV has made a valuable contribution to tackling crime. We are currently exploring whether and how additional provision can be made for additional CCTV systems, especially in town centres and I hope to shortly be in a position to give further consideration to this.

  You will already be aware that three additional CCTVs were recently installed in south Belfast from funding secured from the business sector. Public funding was provided to support this scheme with the provision of radio's to local business premises.

  On 30 April the police announced the provision of five emergency contact points to be integrated into the CCTV system. These new contact points will permit the public to communicate, both verbally and through the CCTV camera, with the CCTV control room. If they are successful they should reduce the fear of crime.

  Crime/Drug Addiction
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment has been made of the link between crime and drug addiction in Northern Ireland. [111330]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Government are aware of anecdotal information, and limited evidence available from the Probation Board, that suggest that there are links between illicit drug misuse and crime in Northern Ireland. A number of small, localised, analyses have been completed, but a full regional assessment has yet to be carried out.

  Under the Implementation Structures, created for delivery of the Illicit drugs and Alcohol Strategies, one of the activities specified in the Drug and Alcohol Regional Action Plan related to: undertaking research into the extent and nature of the drug problem, to identify crime committed under the influence of drugs and crime committed to get drugs. This activity has now been extended to cover alcohol, and a joint project is soon to be initiated.

  Ex-prisoner Groups
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what funding bodies have responsibility for allocating funds to groups and organisations dealing with ex-prisoner issues; how much each such body has allocated to ex-prisoner groups in the current year; and which ex-prisoner groups have benefited. [106240]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I am sorry for the delay in replying, the information requested required considerable cross-departmental co-ordination.

  The Northern Ireland Office does not allocate any funds directly to ex-prisoner groups. The Department does however provide core funding to two grant-aided non-statutory organisations, NIACRO and EXTERN,
  80W
  who provide accommodation services and links to employability. These services can be made available to ex-offenders in the community.

  Within the Northern Ireland Administration groups and organisations dealing with ex-prisoners may apply for funding from any programme or scheme for which they satisfy the eligibility criteria. In the year 2002–03, a total of —3,767,906 was allocated from a variety of sources. Details are given in the tables.

  Funding to ex-prisoner groups

  —

  Funding body

  Total figure

  Community Relations Council

  510

  Community Foundation (NI)

  2,092,256

  Department for Employment and Learning

  564,842

  Department of Education

  4,800

  YESIP (YouthNet)

  15,661

  Omagh Local Strategy Partnership

  34,000

  Strabane Local Strategy Partnership

  63,750

  Cooperation Ireland

  92,149

  Area Development Management/Combat Poverty Agency

  755,541

  BRO North Team

  88,240

  BRO Inner West Team/Outer West Team (Joint Funded)

  56,157

  align="center">Organisations receiving funding

  Coiste na N-Iarchimi

  Tar Isteach

  Lisburn Prisoners' Support Project

  Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders (NIACRO)

  Gae Lairn Ltd

  Tar Anall

  Arais Aris ar an Omaigh

  Cairde

  larchime Fear Manach

  La Nua

  Failte Chlain Eois

  Cumann na Meirleach

  Teach na Failte

  EPIC (Ex-Prisoners Interpretative Centre)

  An Eochair Ex-Prisoner Support

  New Lodge Forum

  Tar Abhaile

  Cumann na Meirleach Ard Mhaca Theas

  EPIC Northwest

  Amach Agus Insteach

  Cairde Strabane Ex-Prisoners Group

  Upp Springfield Devel Trust

  Goitse

  Prisoners Enterprise Project

  Iarchimi Fhearmanach

  North Belfast Prisoners Aid

  Tra Chearr

  Garda Siochana Uniform
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date the Garda Siochana uniform was placed in the display cabinet in the foyer of Garnerville PSNI station; what articles were removed from the display cabinet in the foyer of Garnerville PSNI station to make way for the Garda Siochana uniform; what police uniforms are on display in the display cabinet in the foyer of Garnerville PSNI station; and when the first passing out parade of the PSNI took place. [90022]
  81W
  Jane Kennedy
  It was not necessary to remove any articles to make way for the Garda Siochana uniform which was placed on display at the Police College at Garnerville on 5 April 2002. There are currently two Royal Irish Constabulary, one Royal Ulster Constabulary, one Police Service of Northern Ireland and one Garda Siochana uniform on display.

  The first PSNI graduation ceremony was held on 5 April 2002.

  Interface Conflict
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his definition is of(a) a security response and (b) a community safety initiative in the context of dealing with interface conflict in Northern Ireland. [89440]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The security response to interface violence is essentially the measures the police have deemed necessary in order to keep the warring factions apart and defuse street disturbances. In addition to the deployment of substantial manpower resources, both police and army, other security measures include the installation of CCTV cameras at interface locations and the erection of security fences.

  Community Safety means preventing, reducing or containing the social, environmental and intimidatory factors which affect people's right to live without fear of crime and which impact on the quality of life. This definition applies across all areas of Northern Ireland, including the interface areas.

  Invest Northern Ireland
  Mr. Donaldson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed by Invest Northern Ireland. [109987]

  Mr. Pearson
  As at 30 March 2003 Invest Northern Ireland had 709 staff plus a further nine engaged on local contracts in its overseas offices.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assistance Invest Northern Ireland has given in the past year to existing businesses in North Belfast to enable them to remain viable. [119039]

  Angela Smith
  In the financial year from 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, Invest Northern Ireland has offered a total of —8,630,000 to businesses and their support organisations in the North Belfast parliamentary constituency.

  In addition to direct financial support, Invest Northern Ireland funds a range of programmes operating within North Belfast which are aimed at encouraging both new business start-ups and existing business growth.

  Judicial Oversight Commissioner
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress made in appointing a judicial oversight commissioner for Northern Ireland. [116370]
  82W
  Mr. Browne
  Interviews for the post of Criminal Justice Oversight Commissioner for Northern Ireland have been conducted. Once an appointment has been made, the Government will make an announcement.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the estimated cost is in 2003–04 to his Department, agencies and the non-departmental public bodies for which he is responsible of the increase in the national minimum wage from —4.20 per hour to —4.50 per hour. [110437]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The increase in the national minimum wage will not result in any additional costs to the pay bill of the Northern Ireland Office or the 11 departments within the Northern Ireland Administration as all staff are already earning in excess of —4.50 per hour.

  Northern Ireland Act
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much each Government Department of the Northern Ireland Assembly has spent on consultations arising from section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 since 1999. [116044]

  Mr. Browne
  It is not possible to accurately identify the costs of consultations arising from section 75 as such consultations are frequently undertaken as part of the general policy consultation process.

  Police Service of Northern Ireland
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what independent evaluation has been made of PSNI training procedures; what criteria has been used to judge their effectiveness; and what plans are in place for future evaluation. [114145]

  Jane Kennedy
  Occupational Psychologists and the University of Ulster evaluate the training process for student officers. A range of organisations are engaged to evaluate programme delivery, for example, the Police Skills and Standards Organisation, Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission, Mediation Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Inspector of Training and the Learning Advisory Council. All of the above organisations are engaged on an ongoing basis.

  Since the launch of the Student Officer Programme in November 2001, two external evaluations have been conducted. The Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission reviewed the Human Rights elements whilst Mediation Network looked at the police/ community relationships module.

  Independent evaluation of 'Course for All' is currently being procured.

  In addition, Her Majesty's Inspector of Constabulary has evaluated training as part of the UK wide Diversity Review.

  The PSNI has recently invited a number of organisations with a statutory interest in police training to meet and discuss how future evaluation can be co-ordinated and managed.
  83W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many applications were received for the new position of civilian director of training for the PSNI; how many applicants were interviewed and what the breakdown by perceived community of origin and gender; what equal opportunities monitoring procedures were undertaken as part of the recruitment process; and if he will place a copy of the job specification in the Library. [114146]

  Jane Kennedy
  42 applications were received for the position of civilian director of training. 16 applicants attended the first interview stage, and six attended the second. The breakdown at the second stage interview was four male, two female/two Catholic, four non-Catholic.

  The equal opportunities monitoring was carried out by the PSNF's Equal Opportunities Unit.

  A copy of the job specification has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many external tutors and organisations are involved in the training of PSNI recruits and staff: what his estimate is of expenditure in this financial year; and if he will place the list of names and organisations in the Library. [114150]

  Jane Kennedy
  Approximately 91 external tutors and organisations are employed by the PSNI. Spend for the current financial year at 19 May is —114,250.

  Not all external tutors and organisations would wish their details to be in the public domain and, therefore, the PSNI does not propose to provide a list for the Library.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many tutors involved in the training of PSNI recruits and staff have been(a) suspended and (b) removed from their posts in the last two years. [114151]

  Jane Kennedy
  One tutor has been temporarily transferred pending the outcome of a disciplinary investigation.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken to submit PSNI training procedures to public consultation. [114152]

  Jane Kennedy
  The PSNI's training procedures result from the Service's Training, Education and Development Programme. The TED Programme was approved by the Northern Ireland Policing Board in March 2002.

  During the Formulation of the TED Programme a number of organisations representing a broad spectrum of society were consulted.

  There was also public consultation before the launch in November 2001 of the Student Officer training programme. The University of Ulster managed the public consultation for the PSNI and the University has established a Learning Advisory Council which will continue to gather public comment.
  84W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures have been taken to ensure that community awareness training is developed and integrated into all aspects of PSNI training. [114153]

  Jane Kennedy
  Measures are currently being developed to ensure that community awareness training is developed and integrated into all aspects of PSNI training. The Service is working with Mediation Northern Ireland in this area.

  Attention was focused on community awareness in the designing of the Student Officer Programme.

  The core themes of the Training, Education and Development Strategy, approved by the Northern Ireland Policing Board in April 2002, were diversity, equality and community policing.

  The recent report of the Oversight Commissioner indicated that the PSNI had achieved administrative compliance with the relevant Patten recommendation (139).

  The Policing Board is to review progress in this area toward the end of the year.

  President Bush (Visit)
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total costs associated with the recent visit of President Bush to Hillsborough, County Down were. [113450]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The costs associated with President Bush's visit to Northern Ireland, which included visits by the Prime Minister and the Taoiseach, were borne by a number of agencies and met from within their existing operating budgets. Information on the costs relating to this visit is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Public Service Agreement
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland(a) how many and (b) what grades of officials are responsible for the monitoring of progress towards the public service agreement targets of the Department. [109469]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office has four Public Service Agreement targets, the delivery of which is the responsibility of Directors at SCS level. Monitoring is carried out by three Grade As, one Grade B1 and one Grade B2, as part of their normal duties.

  As from 1 April 2003, progress reports are available on the web site www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/performance/nio.cfm. Within the Northern Ireland Administration progress towards the targets is monitored by officials as part of their work. The information requested on the precise staff numbers and grades is not readily available and could be obtainable only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps the Department has taken to publicise its Public Service Agreement targets; and at what cost to public funds. [114446]
  85W
  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Public Service Agreement targets for the 11 Departments of the Northern Ireland administration were published in 'Building on Progress—Priorities and Plans 2003–2006'. A copy of this document was placed in the House of Commons Library on 11 December 2002. This document is also available on the Programme for Government web-site (www.pfgni.gov.uk). The cost of printing the document amounted to —6,837.

  The Public Service Agreement targets for the Northern Ireland Office were published in the PSA White Paper Command 5571 and were placed on the HMT website. The Department also made them available on the NIO website. Reporting on the performance on the targets is made available to the public via the Treasury website www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/performance/nio.cfm, the Autumn Performance Report and as part of the information contained in the NIO Departmental Report.

  The web-based publication of the PSA target forms a small section in each of these comprehensive sources of information, and can be viewed at no cost to public funds.

  The cost of printing the Departmental Report amounted to —5,130.00.

  Road Obstructions
  Mr. Peter Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many persons received summonses for obstructing free passage along a road without lawful authority or reasonable excuse arising from(a) the protest against the visit of the President of the United States to Hillsborough in April 2003 and (b) the celebration by supporters of the Armagh GAA team flowing their All-Ireland victory. [118245]

  Jane Kennedy
  In relation to(a), no persons received summonses for protesting against the visit of President Bush to Hillsborough in April 2003. Regarding (b), there were no summonses for obstruction. The return 'procession' to Armagh City was legally notified to the Parades Commission and was not subject to any conditions.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his policy is on the use of covert fixed cameras to detect speeding motorists; and whether the presence of such cameras must be notified to motorists. [115997]

  Jane Kennedy
  Northern Ireland has a significant road traffic collision problem of which speed is a significant contributory factor. Research indicates that speed cameras have made a positive contribution towards saving lives on the roads. Following the launch of the Northern Ireland Road Safety Strategy 2002–03, fixed speed cameras will be introduced into Northern Ireland on the basis of a pilot scheme on 1 July 2003.

  The Police Service of Northern Ireland, who participated in fixed speed camera trials, will comply with Home Office guidelines which stipulate that the face of the fixed camera will be painted yellow and all such cameras must be accompanied by suitable signage.
  86W
  It is intended to keep the community fully informed as to the location of all fixed camera sites.

  Northern Ireland has a significant road traffic collision problem, horribly illustrated by the high number of deaths from 1 January 2003. Speed is a significant contributory factor and international research has shown that for every 1mph reduction in average speed, there was a 5 per cent. reduction in the number of collisions.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Councillors' Allowances
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much was paid in attendance allowances to local authority councillors in England in each of the last 10 financial years; and how much he estimates will be allocated in the current financial year. [118742]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Local authorities have not been able to pay attendance allowance since July 2001. When attendance allowance was payable, information on the amounts paid by local authorities to councillors was not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Councillors may receive basic and special responsibility allowances in respect of their duties. These are discretionary allowances, with their levels set by individual local authorities, having regard to the recommendations of their independent remuneration panels. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not gather information on the total amount of allowances paid to councillors.

  Arson
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what target the Government have set to reduce the number of malicious fires relating to school premises; when the target was set; and if he will make a statement. [119200]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government have a target of a 30 per cent. reduction in the number of deliberate fires, including school premises, by March 2009. The target was set following the Spending Review 2000, and the results reported in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Annual Report 2003.

  Following the Spending Review 2002, fire targets are being reviewed and a revised deliberate fires target will be announced in the Government's forthcoming Fire White Paper, due shortly.

  Arson is one of the major fire threats facing us today. In 2001, we established the Arson Control Forum to provide the strategic direction to the national fight against arson. The Forum is taking forward a programme of measures that will address arson in its many forms, including deliberate school fires.

  To date, the Forum has invested some —2.25 million in local initiatives. These include programmes aimed at educating children about the dangers of playing with fire. We have allocated a further —13.3 million over the next three years to build on this programme of work.
  87W
  Mr. Pickles
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many malicious fires relating to school premises there were in each year since 1997, in each fire brigade area across England and Wales. [119201]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The following table contains information on the number of malicious fires in schools attended by local authority fire brigades in England and Wales in each year between 1997 and 2001 (the latest calendar year for which data are available). Malicious fires are those where malicious or deliberate ignition was proved or suspected (this includes fires which were recorded by the brigade as "doubtful").

  Malicious fires1,2in schools by brigade, England and Wales, 1997–20013

  Brigade area

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  20013

  England and Wales

  927

  726

  874

  799

  892

  England

  865

  694

  821

  752

  855

  England—non-Met counties

  369

  382

  396

  423

  415

  Avon

  15

  23

  15

  13

  16

  Bedfordshire

  0

  13

  8

  20

  10

  Berkshire

  5

  6

  10

  5

  2

  Buckinghamshire

  12

  3

  17

  12

  9

  Cambridgeshire

  9

  7

  8

  0

  0

  Cheshire

  21

  11

  14

  24

  10

  Cleveland

  36

  24

  12

  31

  5

  Cornwall

  0

  1

  5

  0

  0

  Cumbria

  5

  2

  15

  3

  7

  Derbyshire

  9

  25

  12

  4

  14

  Devon

  20

  0

  13

  13

  21

  Dorset

  5

  1

  13

  5

  13

  Durham

  17

  25

  10

  12

  10

  East Sussex

  8

  1

  8

  19

  17

  Essex

  11

  21

  5

  16

  15

  Gloucestershire

  14

  0

  0

  8

  5

  Hampshire

  6

  8

  15

  20

  24

  Hereford & Worcester

  0

  8

  0

  4

  5

  Hertfordshire

  4

  19

  30

  19

  8

  Humberside

  8

  37

  26

  9

  32

  Isle of Wight

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Kent

  20

  6

  14

  6

  17

  Lancashire

  34

  34

  28

  45

  41

  Leicestershire

  17

  10

  11

  17

  21

  Lincolnshire

  8

  0

  5

  0

  0

  Norfolk

  0

  0

  1

  10

  4

  North Yorkshire

  11

  1

  5

  26

  5

  Northamptonshire

  4

  15

  11

  0

  10

  Northumberland

  5

  4

  4

  4

  5

  Nottinghamshire

  18

  43

  9

  29

  15

  Oxfordshire

  1

  2

  9

  5

  11

  Shropshire

  10

  10

  5

  4

  0

  Somerset

  6

  6

  0

  4

  15

  Staffordshire

  3

  13

  26

  11

  19

  Suffolk

  6

  0

  0

  0

  8

  Surrey

  5

  0

  0

  5

  8

  Warwickshire

  10

  0

  0

  4

  5

  West Sussex

  2

  0

  26

  8

  0

  Wiltshire

  4

  1

  9

  7

  10

  Isles of Scilly

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  England—Met Counties

  496

  312

  424

  329

  440

  Greater Manchester

  146

  103

  110

  55

  101

  Merseyside

  123

  48

  58

  56

  49

  South Yorkshire

  21

  20

  13

  20

  43

  Tyne and Wear

  28

  33

  23

  33

  32

  West Midlands

  59

  42

  55

  64

  50

  West Yorkshire

  58

  31

  54

  42

  75

  Greater London

  60

  36

  112

  59

  90

  Wales

  62

  32

  54

  47

  37

  North Wales

  17

  15

  8

  6

  0

  Mid and West Wales

  12

  14

  14

  25

  0

  South Wales

  33

  3

  31

  16

  37

  1 Including late call and heat and smoke damage incidents.

  2 Figures are based on sampled data weighted to true brigade totals.

  3 Provisional

  Fire Safety Legislation
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the work being carried out by his Department to rationalise fire safety legislation; and if he will make a statement. [119446]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with stakeholder organisations, through the Fire Safety Advisory Board, to refine our proposals to reform fire safety legislation, on which we consulted last year. Although the consultation exercise formally ended on 22 November 2002, we took the decision to take account of any further comments received while consideration of responses was being conducted. That work is now largely complete and we expect to be in a position to bring legislation, in the form a Regulatory Reform Order, before Parliament in the autumn.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what evidence he has collated of cost differences between Worcestershire and Warwickshire when credit approvals are given for capital allocations. [118946]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Although basic credit approvals are mainly issued by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister, the total is determined as part of departmental spending plans. For 2003–04, each individual local authority's share of the total depended on

  1. the total of service based allocations for those services for which it is responsible (in this instance, Warwickshire and Worcestershire will comprise Education, Personal Social Services, Transport, and Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services (EPCS)); plus

  2. adjustments to reflect updated receipts information for previous year and to provide for the EPCS Annual Capital Guideline; and

  3. the amount distributed according to ministerial discretion.

  The basis for distributing basic credit approvals for each of the individual service elements identified at 1. above differs:

  The Department for Education and Skills uses a needs based formula for credit approvals which is split 40 per cent. based on pupil numbers and 60 per cent. on the building condition need. This formula does have a regional weighting factor, which is based on a relative assessment of building costs in the area. Worcestershire's weighting factor is 0.96 and Warwickshire's is one.

  The Department for Transport bases its allocations on the length of networks and numbers of bridges etc. It also factors in the relative size of backlogs compared to the national picture. Some adjustments may be made to allocations based on information supplied by the Government Office, local authority and Department for Transport, which can take account of cost differentials.

  The Department of Health allocation of BCA is based on two factors: tender price indexing for social housing (TPISH) and an authority's population figures. As both

  89W
  Worcestershire and Warwickshire are in the West Midlands region, the same TPISH figure will apply. Population figures are split into three age groupings (based on Census 2001 data) which are weighted. Allocation differences will arise from the individual local authority population differences.

  In addition to basic credit approvals, local authorities also receive supplementary credit approvals from Departments and these are mostly allocated following a bidding process. In these instances, local authorities supply the cost data supporting their, bids, which are then assessed and processed by the relevant Government Departments.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what size of shire county he estimates is sufficient to produce reliable statistics for the calculation of the labour cost adjustment made by his Department. [118947]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minster considers that each pre-reorganisation county area outside London and its fringe area is of sufficient size to produce reliable labour cost factors for use in the funding formula, with the exception of the Isle of Wight.

  During the consultation on the 2003–04 local government finance settlement, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister accepted that the Isle of Wight has a New Earnings Survey sample size, which is not large enough to ensure stable labour cost factors over time. Accordingly, the Isle of Wight has been grouped together with Hampshire for the calculation of the area cost adjustment.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he received from Berkshire county council about area cost adjustment. [118949]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minster has received no correspondence regarding the area cost adjustment in recent years from Berkshire county council, which ceased to exist in 1998.

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what assessment he has made of(a) the impact of allocating additional resources to (i) Warwickshire, (ii) Gloucestershire, (iii) Birmingham and (iv) Dudley in the form of area cost adjustment, and (b) the impact on Worcestershire of not receiving such resources; [118950]

  (2) what impact he estimates area cost adjustment has had on Dudley metropolitan borough council's ability to recruit and retain staff. [118948]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The area cost adjustment (ACA) is a top up in the grant formula, which provides extra grant to areas with higher labour and business rate costs. It is directed at those areas which, because of labour market pressures, have higher recruitment and retention costs. The following table shows the size of the ACA formula top up for four key services for the authorities named above. These figures correspond to those given in the `simpler presentation of formula outcomes tables', produced for the 2003–04 local government finance settlement, detailed in the table.
  90W

  —000

  Area

  Education

  Social Services

  EPCS

  Highways

  Warwickshire

  6,646.29

  2,791.56

  1,046.52

  552.81

  Gloucestershire

  5,663.51

  2,383.59

  929.15

  545.40

  Birmingham

  16,674.65

  8,053.96

  7,147.23

  1,038.61

  Dudley

  4,195.87

  1,863.48

  1,808.79

  310.88

  Although Worcestershire does not receive an ACA top up, it does benefit from the ACA's lower limit floor mechanism. This raises Worcestershire's ACA factor to the ACA's minimum value of one.

  Further information on the effect of the ACA on grant allocations by formula and area can be found in the "Simpler Presentation Guide to the Local Government Finance Settlement 2003–04", which can be found on the Office of the Deputy Prime Ministers website at: http://www.local.odpm.gov.uk/finance/0304/simppress/index. htm

  Mr. Michael Foster
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to treat Worcestershire and Herefordshire as separate counties for the purpose of calculating area cost adjustment;[118951]

  (2) what plans he has to smooth the impact of area list adjustment on neighbouring authorities not in receipt of this. [118945]

  Mr. Raynsford
  In the 2001 local government White Paper, "Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services", the Government announced that the local government funding formula would be frozen for 2004–05 and 2005–06, following the completion of the recent formula review. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not plans to alter the basis on which the area cost adjustment is calculated, other than to update the data on which the adjustment is based, or to take account of any changes to local authority functions.

  School Funding
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what modelling was done by his Department to test the new funding system for local authorities and schools with particular reference to its impact at individual school level. [117873]

  Mr. Raynsford
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Miliband) on 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 126W.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Autism
  Valerie Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans his Department has to ensure that people with autism spectrum disorders can obtain the full range of disability benefits. [118009]

  Maria Eagle
  People with autism spectrum disorders are entitled to disability living allowance and attendance allowance if they meet the usual qualifying conditions for the benefits. Receipt of these benefits can also give entitlement to disability premiums in the income-related benefits and to the disability elements in tax credits. To
  91W
  help severely disabled people claim disability living allowance and attendance allowance we are improving the claim forms and the process for making claims. Decision-makers receive specifically designed training to help them deal with claims from people with autism spectrum disorders and other learning difficulties.

  Child Support Agency
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many cases were dealt with by the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years in(a) Leeds Metropolitan District and (b) the Leeds, West constituency. [116010]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. John Battle of 13 June 12003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask how many cases were dealt with by the Child Support Agency in each of the last five years in (a) Leeds Metropolitan District and (b) the Leeds West Constituency.
  I am unable to provide you with figures relating to the number of cases dealt with by the Agency in Leeds. I can however estimate the number of new applications received in the last four years to 31 March 2002.

  Year to 31 March

  Leeds Metropolitan

  Leeds West

  1999

  2,000

  300

  2000

  1,700

  200

  2001

  1,000

  100

  2002

  1,000

  200

  I do not have the figures for the year ending 31 March 2003. I will ensure that you are provided with this information as soon as it becomes available.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what methods are employed by the Child Support Agency to recover arrears of child maintenance by absent self-employed parents. [118029]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Huw Edwards of 13 June 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent Parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive replyfrom the Chief Executive.
  You ask what methods are employed by the Child Support Agency to recover arrears of child maintenance by absent self-employed parents.
  In these circumstances the non resident parent will be approached by a caseworker who will seek to reach an agreement on payment which is acceptable to all parties. If that does not prove possible the caseworker will make a decision on the most appropriate payment arrangement having regard to all relevant facts and will seek the agreement of the non resident parent to that. If that is not agreed the Agency may apply to the Magistrates Court for a Liability Order, which is required before we can take any formal enforcement proceedings.
  92W
  If the Court has granted a Liability Order, we may then try to recover the debt by one or more of the following actions:

  (a) Levying of distress involving the use of Bailiffs

  (b) Establishing a third party debt order—allowing money owed to the debtor to be frozen and sent to us to cover the outstanding debt

  (c) Establishing a charging order- registering the debt against certain assets owned by the debtor

  (d) Registering a County Court judgement, which may affect the debtors creditrating

  (e) Applying for a warrant to commit the debtor to prison or for an order preventing them from holding or obtaining a driving licence.

  The position I describe applies to England and Wales with a different but broadly similar approach in Scotland.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what enforcement action is being taken against Graham Edward Morris in respect of maintenance arrears due to Deidre Hilder, a constituent. [118072]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 13 June 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask what enforcement action is being taken against Graham Edward Morris in respect of maintenance arrears due to Deidre Milder a constituent.
  As individual cases are confidential I will write to you privately concerning Mr Morris.

  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will recommend to the Child Support Agency that an advance payment is made to Deidre Hilder in respect of arrears due to her. [118073]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Huw Edwards, dated 13 June 2003:
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions in replying to your recent parliamentary question about the Child Support Agency promised a substantive reply from the Chief Executive.
  You ask if he will recommend to the Child Support Agency that an advance payment is made to Deidre Milder in respect of arrears due to her.
  As individual cases are confidential I will write to you privately concerning Deidre Milder.

  Partnership Agreements
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to conclude a partnership agreement with the trade unions representing the staff in his Department. [117445]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department is about to introduce new arrangements for ensuring its trade unions are kept fully informed and are consulted about developments
  93W
  affecting staff, and for granting trade union representatives time off from their official duties. These arrangements reflect a commitment to work within the spirit of the partnership agreement between the Cabinet Office and the Council of Civil Service Unions (CCSU), which was signed in March 2000, arid guidance on best practice provided to employers by the Arbitration, Conciliation and Advisory Service (ACAS). Once these new arrangements have been tested, we will consider our approach to a formal partnership agreement with the Department's trade unions.

  Pathway Centres
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions where within Essex he is establishing Pathway Centres to assist persons with health problems and disabilities to find work; what the purpose was of the centres; and what assessment he has made of their likely benefits. [119174]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  People moving on to incapacity benefits should no longer be regarded as people at the end of their working lives, but people with working futures. The Green Paper "Pathways to Work" (CM 5690) set out a strategy for enabling people with health problems and disabilities to move into work, and so become and remain independent. The Government's consultation response and action plan (CM 5830), published on 10 June 2003, gives details of the proposals we are taking forward.

  The new approach will be introduced in three pilot areas from October 2003, with a further tranche starting from April 2004. On 5 June 2003, I announced that the second tranche of pilot areas would be based in the following Jobcentre Plus districts: Gateshead and South Tyneside, Somerset, Essex and East Lancashire. The Jobcentre Plus pathfinder offices participating in the Essex pilot are: Basildon, Braintree, Brentwood, Canvey Island, Chelmsford, Clacton, Colchester. Grays, Harlow, Harwich, Loughton, Rayleigh, Southend, Stansted Airport, Tilbury and Witham.

  A comprehensive evaluation programme of the pilots will be in place to assess the effectiveness of the proposals in supporting a return to work. As well as looking at the overall impact of the package of provision, the evaluation will assess what works best for whom, and in what circumstances, through quantitative surveys and qualitative studies of people claiming incapacity benefits, Jobcentre Plus staff and other key stakeholders.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average pensioner income levels have been in each of the last 10 years. [118683]

  Maria Eagle
  The average net incomes (before housing costs for the years 1994–95 to 2000–01 for all pensioner units are contained in the following table.94W

  Year

  Average incomes (— per week, 2000–01 prices)

  1994–05

  183

  1995–06

  182

  1996–07

  193

  1997–08

  196

  1998–09

  201

  1999–2000

  209

  2000–01

  215

  Notes:

  1. All pensioner units are defined as: single (non-cohabiting people over the age of state pension age (65 and over for men, 60 and over for women) and couples (married or cohabiting) where the man is over the state pension age.

  2. All incomes are shown as per week and at 2000–01 prices.

  Source:

  The Pensioners' Incomes Series, 2000–01

  Estimates for earlier years are available in the publication The Pensioners' Incomes Series 2000–01 but they are not directly comparable with those in the table.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of regional variations in pensioner poverty. [112765]

  Maria Eagle
  Estimates of the composition of low-income groups of pensioners and the percentages of pensioners with incomes below a range of low-income thresholds in 2001–02, analysed by Government Office Region, were published in Tables 6.4 and 6.6 of Households Below Average Income 1994–95–2001–02. A copy is available in the Library.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners will benefit from the pension credit in Scotland, broken down by(a) local authority and (b) parliamentary constituency. [118250]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested however 400,000 people in Scotland stand to benefit from Pension Credit.

  Source:

  Policy Simulation Model 2003/04, based on data from the Family Resources Survey 2000–01.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Scotland are in receipt of the minimum income guarantee, broken down by(a) local authority and (b) parliamentary constituency. [118251]

  Maria Eagle
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Scotland are in receipt of the pension age addition, broken down by(a) local authority and (b) parliamentary constituency; and what percentage this represents of all pensioners in those local authorities and constituencies. [118464]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, the information in the tables shows the numbers of pensioners aged 80 and over in receipt of State Pension, which includes the age addition, as a percentage of all pensioners who are in receipt of a State Pension.
  95W

  State Pension recipients aged 80 plus Scotland by parliamentary constituency

  Age 80 and over in receipt of State Pension (Thousand)

  All in receipt of State pension (Thousand)

  Percentage

  All

  201.3

  917.3

  22.0

  Aberdeen Central

  2.6

  10.9

  23.9

  Aberdeen North

  2.0

  11.0

  18.2

  Aberdeen South

  3.2

  14.2

  23.1

  Airdrie and Shotts

  2.1

  12.1

  17.4

  Angus

  3.5

  15.6

  22.4

  Argyll and Bute

  3.0

  13.6

  22.1

  Ayr

  3.8

  15.5

  25.1

  Banff and Buchan

  2.9

  13.4

  28.2

  Caithness Sunderland and Easter Ross

  2.3

  10.5

  22.1

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  3.5

  15.6

  22.4

  Central Fife

  2.7

  14.0

  19.2

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  3.3

  13.8

  24.1

  Clydesdale

  3.5

  15.6

  22.4

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  2.1

  11.2

  19.1

  Comhairle nan Eileen Siar

  1.3

  5.0

  26.0

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  1.6

  8.8

  18.1

  Cunninghame North

  3.3

  14.7

  22.4

  Cunninghame South

  2.0

  10.4

  19.2

  Dumbarton

  2.7

  12.5

  21.9

  Dumfries

  2.8

  16.5

  17.1

  Dundee East

  3.3

  15.5

  21.5

  Dundee West

  2.6

  12.6

  20.8

  Dunfermline East

  2.6

  11.5

  22.8

  Dunfermline West

  2.5

  11.7

  21.5

  East Kilbride

  2.7

  15.4

  17.5

  East Lothian

  3.9

  15.4

  25.0

  Eastwood

  3.9

  16.8

  23.4

  Edinburgh Central

  2.8

  11.0

  25.2

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  2.9

  13.1

  22.3

  Edinburgh North and Leigh

  2.6

  10.7

  24.6

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  3.3

  12.8

  25.8

  Edinburgh South

  4.0

  13.3

  30.2

  Edinburgh West

  3.3

  15.9

  21.1

  Falkirk East

  2.9

  13.4

  21.7

  Falkirk West

  2.6

  12.5

  20.5

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  3.3

  15.1

  22.1

  Glasgow Anniesland

  3.4

  13.4

  25.2

  Glasgow Baillieston

  1.7

  10.1

  17.2

  Glasgow Cathcart

  2.4

  11.4

  21.2

  Glasgow Govan

  2.6

  8.4

  31.2

  Glasgow Kelvin

  2.7

  9.3

  29.5

  Glasgow Maryhill

  2.5

  9.7

  26.1

  Glasgow Pollok

  2.5

  12.5

  19.7

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  2.6

  12.9

  20.3

  Glasgow Shettleston

  2.0

  10.2

  19.3

  Glasgow Springburn

  2.6

  12.2

  21.1

  Gordon

  2.7

  13.3

  20.6

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  2.9

  12.9

  22.8

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  1.8

  9.6

  18.9

  Hamilton South

  1.8

  9.8

  18.8

  Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber

  3.6

  16.9

  21.3

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  3.7

  15.4

  24.1

  Kirkcaldy

  3.0

  13.1

  23.1

  Linlithgow

  2.2

  11.2

  19.5

  Livingston

  1.8

  10.6

  16.6

  Midlothian

  2.5

  11.2

  22.3

  Moray

  2.9

  14.3

  20.4

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  2.6

  13.1

  19.6

  North East Fife

  3.7

  14.9

  24.9

  North Tayside

  4.0

  17.6

  23.0

  Ochil

  2.4

  12.2

  19.5

  Orkney and Shetland

  1.9

  7.7

  24.9

  Paisley North

  2.4

  11.4

  21.1

  Paisley South

  2.5

  12.9

  19.4

  Perth

  3.9

  16.3

  24.1

  Ross Skye and Inverness West

  2.9

  13.9

  20.8

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  3.3

  13.3

  24.9

  Stirling

  2.9

  13.3

  21.6

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  2.8

  14.1

  19.8

  96W 97W

  State Pension recipients aged 80 plus in Scotland by parliamentary constituency

  Age 80 and over in receipt of State Pension (Thousand)

  All in receipt of State Pension (Thousand)

  Percentage

  Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  2.9

  12.5

  23.6

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  3.2

  13.2

  24.3

  West Renfrewshire

  2.1

  11.2

  18.4

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

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

  Source:

  Pension Strategy Computer System as at 30 September 2002

  State Pension recipients aged 80 plus in Scotland by local authority

  Age 80 and over in receipt of State Pension (Thousand)

  All in receipt of State Pension (Thousand)

  Percentage

  All

  201.3

  917.3

  22.0

  Aberdeen City

  7.8

  36.1

  21.6

  Aberdeenshire

  8.6

  38.3

  22.3

  Angus

  5.2

  21.8

  23.9

  Argyll and Bute

  4.0

  17.7

  22.5

  City of Edinburgh

  18.2

  74.5

  24.5

  Clackmannanshire

  1.5

  7.6

  19.9

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  1.3

  5.0

  25.8

  Dumfries and Galloway

  6.2

  31.6

  19.5

  Dundee City

  6.0

  28.3

  21.2

  East Ayrshire

  5.3

  22.5

  23.6

  East Dumbartonshire

  4.1

  19.6

  21.1

  East Lothian

  4.6

  17.8

  26.0

  East Renfrewshire

  3.9

  16.8

  23.4

  Falkirk

  5.5

  25.9

  21.1

  Fife

  14.6

  65.2

  22.4

  Glasgow City

  22.8

  99.0

  23.0

  Highland

  8.8

  41.2

  21.3

  Inverclyde

  3.6

  16.9

  21.3

  Midlothian

  3.1

  14.0

  22.1

  Moray

  3.2

  15.9

  20.3

  North Ayrshire

  5.3

  25.1

  21.0

  North Lanarkshire

  9.6

  50.9

  18.8

  Orkney Islands

  1.2

  4.2

  28.4

  Perth and Kinross

  6.5

  29.3

  22.3

  Renfrewshire

  6.3

  31.4

  20.0

  Shetland Isles

  0.7

  3.6

  20.8

  South Ayrshire

  5.8

  24.0

  24.1

  South Lanarkshire

  11.0

  55.1

  19.9

  Stirling

  3.4

  16.0

  21.4

  The Scottish Borders

  5.6

  22.9

  24.6

  West Dumbartonshire

  3.7

  17.3

  21.5

  West Lothian

  4.0

  21.8

  18.1

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred and are expressed in thousands.

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

  Source:

  Pension Strategy Computer System as at 30 September 2002

  Pensions
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the working population have no private pension provision. [117102]

  Maria Eagle
  Information is not available in the form requested. However, the recent Green Paper "Simplicity, security and choice: Working and Saving 98W
  for Retirement" (Cm 5677-Chart at page 51) noted that, in 2001–02, more than half of all employees were contributing to a private pension. The Family Resources Survey 2001–02, on which the relevant Green Paper material was based, indicated that 11.8 million employees (45 per cent. of the total) were not at that time contributing to a private pension. Many of these may, of course, have private pension provision to which they were not contributing at that time.

  Personnel Issues
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many employees have been seconded from Capita to the Department and its predecessors since 1997; for how long they worked in the Department; and what positions they held. [115624]

  Maria Eagle
  No employees have been seconded from Capita to the Department for Work and Pensions, or to the for Department of Social Security and the Employment Service, since 1997.

  Single Equality Body
  Dr. Francis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) what assessment he has made of the benefits of a federal model for the Single Equality Body for promoting equality and fairness for people with disabilities; [118199]

  (2) if he will ensure that disability will continue to have high priority in the primary legislation which will create the Single Equality Body. [118200]

  Maria Eagle
  We are still considering responses to the consultation document "Equality and Diversity—Making it happen" on future institutional support for equality legislation including the submission from the Disability Rights Commission. We will be making a statement on the broad shape of future arrangements in due course. The challenge for Government is to ensure that whatever decisions are made deliver a structure which serves the needs of all people covered by equality legislation including disabled people.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Jim Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Social Fund claims there were in each(a) region and (b) nation of the UK since 1996; and how many were successful. [113065]
  99W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Social Security Fraud
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were(a) cautioned and

  Prosecutions and sanctions since 2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  DWP

  Local authority

  Total

  DWP

  Local authority

  Total

  DWP

  Local authority

  Total

  Custodial sentences2

  660

  1—

  1—

  650

  1—

  1—

  470

  1—

  1—

  Community sentences3

  2,700

  1—

  1—

  3,070

  1—

  1—

  2,810

  1—

  1—

  Other sentences4

  8,040

  1—

  1—

  7,470

  1—

  1—

  5,990

  1—

  1—

  Total successful prosecutions

  11,400

  1,110

  12,510

  11,180

  1,700

  12,880

  9,270

  1,691

  10,961

  Cautions

  7,840

  —

  7,840

  7,030

  1,470

  8,500

  7,080

  2,435

  9,515

  Administrative penalties

  7,710

  550

  8,260

  6,520

  1,131

  7,651

  7,190

  1,605

  8,795

  Total

  26,950

  1,660

  28,610

  24,730

  4,301

  29,031

  23,540

  5,731

  29,271

  1 Breakdown not available

  Notes:

  1. Local authority figures are available for first three quarters of 2002–03 only.

  2. Imprisonment, Young Offenders Institute, or custodial and fine.

  3. Community Service.

  4. Absolute discharge, conditional discharge, compensation only, admonishment, fine, community rehabilitation, suspended sentence, supervision order, Young Offenders Institute, attendance centre, unknown.

  5. Cautions were made available to local authorities as a sanction from the start of 2001–02

  6. Figures for financial year 2000–01 are taken from local authority management information returns. It is possible that there could be some double counting with DWP data if there were cases which involved a joint prosecution.

  7. Management information data for financial year 2000–01 is not available for all local authorities. The total for Great Britain includes estimates for local authorities that have not responded. These estimates are based on historical and regional data. This type of estimate is standard practice in reporting totals where there have been non-respondents. The figures for financial year 2000–01 have been rounded to two significant figures.

  8. Information for 2001–02 is from a count of prosecutions and sanctions completed by all local authorities; this data is collected from local authority subsidy returns. Subsidy data may differ from management information data (shown for financial year 2000–01) at local authority level; however, analysis shows a high level of consistency between the two data sources at national level.

  9. The DWP figures are from the Fraud Information By Sector database, which shows completed cases commenced in the relevant period. Due to the elapsed time between commencement of an investigation and completion of a prosecution there are cases that are inserted into previously completed data for earlier periods. All DWP totals are therefore correct at the time when quoted but subject to adjustment at a later date

  10. In accordance with National Statistics Guidelines all DWP figures are rounded to the nearest 10. Due to rounding process totals may not agree.

  Whistleblowers Hotline
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many calls have been made to the Department's Whistleblowers Hotline in each year since its introduction, broken down by category; and what action has been taken on those cases. [112647]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Whistleblowers Hotline was set up in December 2000 and can be used by any member of staff who wants to report wrongdoing anywhere in the Department but who does not want to report their concerns through the usual channels.

  The categories of cases reported to the Department's Whistleblowers Hotline, and detailed in the table below, are categorised using the criteria set out in the Public Interest (Disclosure) Act 1998.

  The Act is designed to protect workers from suffering detriment by their employer if the worker has made a qualifying disclosure as defined within the Act.

  The Departmental group which manages the hotline service is independent of local management. All concerns raised are considered by this group and referred for further investigation to the appropriate authority whether inside or outside the Department.
  100W
  (b) prosecuted for social security fraud in each year since 2000; how much was involved; what were the penalties; and if he will make a statement. [118077]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information is not held centrally on the value of fraud where a prosecution or sanction has been applied. The available information is in the table.

  Category

  1 December 2000 to 31 March 2001

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2002

  Criminal offence committed

  15

  15

  20

  Breach of legal obligation

  5

  5

  6

  Miscarriage of justice

  1

  0

  1

  Danger to health and safety

  0

  0

  3

  Damage to the environment

  1

  1

  0

  Concealment of any of the above matters

  2

  1

  2

  Total

  24

  22

  32

  The Department only started tracking outcomes of investigations in October 2002.

  The Department takes all allegations of wrongdoing by staff very seriously. It carriesout probing enquiries to determine whether the allegation is substantiated and if appropriate, takes disciplinary or other action. In instances where criminal offences have occurred the individual can also be prosecuted

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Scotland received the winter fuel allowance for the 2002–03 winter, broken down by(a) local authority and (b) parliamentary

  101W
  constituency; and what percentage these figures represent of the total numbers eligible for the allowance in each local authority and constituency. [117100]

  Maria Eagle
  Around one million people in Scotland received a winter fuel payment for the winter of 2002–03. Information broken down by constituency and local authority is not yet available but figures for 2001–02 are given in the tables. Most, but not all, people aged 60 and over are eligible for a winter fuel payment. The majority of entitled people receive their payments automatically but some have to claim and, because of this, we cannot provide a percentage of eligible people who received a payment.

  Winter fuel payments for Scotland by parliamentary constituency winter 2001–02

  Thousand

  All

  994.4

  Aberdeen Central

  11.6

  Aberdeen North

  12.0

  Aberdeen South

  15.5

  Airdrie and Shotts

  13.4

  Angus

  16.4

  Argyll and Bute

  15.4

  Ayr

  16.8

  Banff and Buchan

  14.7

  Caithness Sunderland and Easter Ross

  11.6

  Carrick Cumnock and Doon Valley

  17.9

  Central Fife

  14.5

  Clydebank and Milngavie

  14.4

  Clydesdale

  15.8

  Coatbridge and Chryston

  12.2

  Cumbernauld and Kilsyth

  10.0

  Cunninghame North

  16.3

  Cunninghame South

  11.5

  Dumbarton

  13.8

  Dumfries

  18.1

  Dundee East

  16.0

  Dundee West

  14.5

  Dunfermline East

  13.1

  Dunfermline West

  12.3

  East Kilbride

  16.3

  East Lothian

  16.0

  Eastwood

  17.8

  Edinburgh Central

  12.0

  Edinburgh East and Musselburgh

  15.8

  Edinburgh North and Leigh

  12.1

  Edinburgh Pentlands

  14.2

  Edinburgh South

  14.2

  Edinburgh West

  17.5

  Falkirk East

  14.3

  FalkirkWest

  14.0

  Galloway and Upper Nithsdale

  17.1

  Glasgow Anniesland

  13.9

  Glasgow Baillieston

  11.4

  Glasgow Cathcart

  12.1

  Glasgow Govan

  10.1

  Glasgow Kelvin

  9.7

  Glasgow Maryhill

  11.2

  Glasgow Pollok

  13.1

  Glasgow Rutherglen

  13.2

  Glasgow Shettleston

  11.4

  Glasgow Springburn

  13.2

  Gordon

  14.2

  Greenock and Inverclyde

  13.0

  Hamilton North and Bellshill

  12.0

  Hamilton South

  10.8

  Inverness East Nairn and Lochaber

  17.1

  Kilmarnock and Loudoun

  15.6

  Kirkcaldy

  14.1

  102W

  Winter fuel payments for Scotland by parliamentary constituency winter 2001–02

  Thousand

  Linlithgow

  12.7

  Livingston

  11.2

  Midlothian

  12.4

  Moray

  15.9

  Motherwell and Wishaw

  14.2

  North East Fife

  16.3

  North Tayside

  18.9

  Ochil

  13.6

  Orkney and Shetland

  8.0

  Paisley North

  12.4

  Paisley South

  14.1

  Perth

  17.2

  Ross Skye and Inverness West

  14.7

  Roxburgh and Berwickshire

  14.4

  Stirling

  13.9

  Strathkelvin and Bearsden

  16.3

  Tweeddale Ettrick and Lauderdale

  13.5

  West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine

  13.5

  West Renfrewshire

  11.8

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  6.4

  Note:

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

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service winter fuels payment 2001–02 exercise

  Winter fuel payments by local authority in Scotland 2001–02

  Thousand

  All

  996.4

  Aberdeen City

  39.1

  Aberdeenshire

  40.7

  Angus

  23.9

  Argyll and Bute

  20.5

  City of Edinburgh

  82.7

  Clackmannanshire

  9.0

  Comhairle nan Eilean Siar

  6.3

  Dumfries and Galloway

  35.2

  Dundee City

  30.5

  East Ayrshire

  24.0

  East Dumbartonshire

  22.0

  East Lothian

  19.2

  East Renfrewshire

  17.8

  Falkirk

  28.3

  Fife

  70.2

  Glasgow City

  108.1

  Highland

  43.3

  Inverclyde

  17.3

  Midlothian

  15.4

  Moray

  17.6

  North Ayrshire

  27.8

  North Lanarkshire

  57.0

  Orkney Islands

  4.2

  Perth and Kinross

  30.5

  Renfrewshire

  34.0

  Shetland Isles

  3.8

  South Ayrshire

  26.4

  South Lanarkshire

  58.2

  Stirling

  16.6

  The Scottish Borders

  24.9

  West Dumbartonshire

  18.2

  West Lothian

  23.8

  Note:

  Figures are in thousands and rounded to the nearest hundred.

  Figures may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  Matching Intelligence Data Analysis Service winter fuels payment 2001–02 exercise 100 per cent. data.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Iraq (Humanitarian Situation)
  The Minister of State, Department for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  The immediate humanitarian situation in Iraq is improving, although many challenges lie ahead. DFID's contribution to this effort is significant. We have already committed £115 million to support the work of humanitarian agencies in the current crisis; £99 million of this has been allocated to specific activities through United Nations agencies (£63.8 million), the Red Cross and Red Crescent (£32 million) and NGOs (£3.4 million). These are the organisations best placed to deliver humanitarian assistance where it is most needed. We have also set aside a further £95 million to meet additional needs as they emerge. DFID teams on the ground in Baghdad and Basra are working with the Coalition Provisional Authority and UK military, and helping to co-ordinate the humanitarian effort.

  Progress is being made. Basra now has as much water as it did before the conflict; all 12 main hospitals in Baghdad are functioning; rubbish is being removed from the streets of Baghdad and Basra; the food distribution system is working again and has sufficient pipeline stocks of the main commodities; electricity supply systems are being repaired; public sector salaries are being paid; and Iraqi policemen are returning to duty.

  Much remains to be done, however. One of the most critical challenges is ensuring law and order, and managing the security sector to ensure that the Iraqi police and armed forces are reformed effectively, and that demobilised soldiers are reintegrated properly into civilian life. More needs to be done to improve Iraq's capacity to provide its people with basic services such as health, education, clean water and sanitation. It will also be important to maintain the effort to clear Iraq of mines and unexploded ordnance, some of which go back to Saddam Hussein's war with Iran in the 1980s; and to make possible the orderly return of Iraqi refugees from neighbouring countries.

  It will also be important to ensure as far as possible the full involvement of women in political and economic affairs, to rebuild Iraqi civil society, to develop independent news media, and to create a favourable environment for Iraqi private sector development.

  The Development Fund for Iraq will be the central means for financing Iraq's public services, as well as meeting the costs of reconstruction and development, during the process of political transformation. It will be essential that the Fund's priority setting and resource
  2WS
  allocation processes work as transparently as possible for the clear benefit of the Iraqi people, as envisaged in UN Security Council Resolution 1483 of 22 May.

  The United Nations is preparing an update of its Flash Appeal for Iraq. It will be discussed at an official level meeting in New York on 23 June, which will be followed by an informal meeting of donors. Any further DFID contribution towards emergency humanitarian assistance will be considered in view of the needs identified in the revised Appeal and the outcome of the discussions in New York. Consideration of the allocation of DFID funding for longer term reconstruction and development will be undertaken in light of the social and economic needs assessments currently being carried out by the World Bank, IMF and United Nations.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Tenancy Moneys
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty)
  Last November we consulted on options for safeguarding tenancy moneys to address concerns that an appreciable number of tenants were losing out—and the image of the private rented sector as a whole was suffering.

  The consultation paper followed two years of Government funding of a pilot tenancy deposit scheme. It reflected the evidence that a voluntary scheme was not an effective option. Take-up of the pilot had been poor and so were the prospects of a self-financing voluntary national scheme, so we sought views on the case for compulsory measures.

  The consultation paper indicated that there is not a robust basis for legislating to compel the protection of tenancy moneys in third party schemes. It showed that with costs of £19 million per annum and benefits of £20 million per annum, the case for so legislating was finely balanced. I have to say that the responses to the consultation were equally inconclusive.

  Nevertheless, the Government are committed to addressing the case for legislation alongside consideration of proposals that the Law Commission plans to publish by this autumn, particularly with regard to written tenancy agreements. That seems an appropriate context in which to address the safeguarding of tenancy money.

  We have learnt some useful lessons from Government funding of the voluntary pilot tenancy deposit scheme—not least that there was no prospect of it becoming a self-financing voluntary scheme with a substantial membership. Therefore, so far as Government funding is concerned it will be have to be wound up. Nevertheless the Government would be more than happy to endorse self-financing voluntary schemes in advance of legislative proposals.

  We will publish detailed proposals and a full response to the consultation later in the year, in the light of what the Law Commission publishes.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Asylum Claims
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  On 20 March we suspended consideration of Iraqi asylum applications following the start of military action in Iraq. We have been keeping under review whether this suspension should be kept in place.

  Large numbers of Iraqis have come to the UK to seek asylum in recent years. We have provided them with asylum or protection on other grounds when they have needed it, but the situation in Iraq has now changed.

  While there remain security and humanitarian concerns in some areas, we believe there has been a real and sustained improvement in the country situation, and that political persecution is no longer prevalent. We will therefore now resume consideration of Iraqi asylum claims. As with asylum applications from all nationalities, each case will be considered individually on its merits.

  This resumption coincides with the decision of the Chief Adjudicator that adjudicators should start listing Iraqi asylum appeals again as from 16 June. Such appeals have been suspended for the same period as initial decision making.

  We are developing a coherent returns programme. Initially, the emphasis will be on facilitating voluntary returns. This will cover failed asylum seekers and others who wish to return to Iraq, including those who applied for or received protection before the military action took place. We will start the enforced return of failed asylum seekers later in the year.
  4WS
  We have in the past given undertakings not to enforce the return of individuals to the Kurdish Autonomous Zone of northern Iraq via other parts of Iraq. That was because of the potential risks those individuals would face from the Saddam Hussein regime. Those undertakings are no longer necessary. Once enforced returns to Iraq are started they will be effected by the route deemed most appropriate.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Convention on the Future of Europe
  The Leader of the House (Peter Hain)
  The Convention on the Future of Europe has done a good job.

  The outcome is a foundation for a modern, more democratic Europe, better anchored to its nation states and more accountable to its citizens. The Constitutional treaty will be simpler and clearer for everyone. It will help us run a more efficient, effective Union after 10 more countries join next year. It should provide legal certainty and stability for a period of many years, and it establishes for the first time a long-term Chair of the European Council, to make sure that the Union's strategy reflects the views of national Governments. This was Britain's priority reform and we have secured it.

  Over the past few weeks, I have tabled a number of amendments. Some of them raise serious policy issues—for example, on foreign policy and defence, and criminal law. Others are to help achieve clarity in what will become a legally binding document. This unfinished business will be negotiated by member states in the Intergovernmental Conference that will now follow. But I believe the wide agreement we have been able to reach here will provide a good basis for the remainder of the Union's work here over the coming months.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Blackburn.

Credit Card Debt
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am not sure whether I should preface my Question with the words, Mr Presiding Officer, but perhaps I may ask it any case.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what view they take of the current extent of credit card indebtedness in the population.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, the United Kingdom credit market remains one of the most competitive in the world. Although figures show that borrowing is increasing in real terms, the vast majority of consumers manage their credit successfully, using it as an enabler, and do not become over-indebted. However, in the light of the increase, the Government are constantly monitoring the situation, and several government departments are working together to ensure that those needing help have access to it.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am grateful for the Minister's reply, but is he aware of the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux report, published last month, entitled, In Too Deep? It reported a 47 per cent increase in debt problems during the past five years, much of it credit card-related, with a quarter of young people aged 20 to 30 shown to be owing about £25,000 or more. Does he accept that that report states that among poorer sections of the population, credit card debt led to physical and mental illness and family breakdown? Even the better off are being lured by mail bombardment by credit card companies to take out more credit cards. Are the Government really monitoring that sufficiently closely?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I am aware of the report. It is important to realise that in spite of that very large increase, there has been no increase—in fact a slight decline—in the number of people in arrears on their credit card payments. Nevertheless, we take the report seriously and will be consulting during the summer on ways in which consumers can be enabled better to understand the costs of borrowing.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Minister said that consumers were not getting too indebted. Has he read the figures from the Bank of England, the British
518
Bankers' Association, the Council of Mortgage Lenders, the Nationwide Building Society and the volume on housing of the 18 studies on the euro? They show that second mortgages now account for half of all mortgages; 4 per cent of total UK gross domestic product; and approaching 10 per cent of all consumer spending on credit cards. Does the Minister—or his colleagues—ever suffer a pang of guilt about consumers mortgaging themselves to the hilt just so the Chancellor can tick his consumer spending forecasts?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the noble Lord should have listened to what I said. I did not say that people were getting over-indebted or less in debt. Clearly the consumer credit figures have risen extremely fast. What I said was that there is no evidence that more people were in arrears—in fact, the number is falling. That suggests that because of the current low interest rates, people are not getting into the difficulties that they did when interest rates were 15 per cent, for example.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, the Minister mentioned that the situation is being carefully monitored. What does monitoring mean? It is a comforting concept that people are watching over the situation. None the less, at what stage does monitoring reach the point at which action needs to be taken? Can he enlighten us on that?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: Yes, my Lords. Monitoring means looking at the figures, which are important indicators of whether things are going wrong. If the number of people getting into arrears on their payments was beginning to rise sharply, one would clearly be concerned and action would be appropriate. Equally, the fact that the amount of indebtedness has risen means that we want to be especially careful that the terms on which people are borrowing are right. That is why we have taken a whole series of appropriate actions, including setting up the National Debtline pilot, in response to that substantial rise in the debt.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, thinking about the important indicator figures, can the Minister tell us what is the level of the savings ratio now compared with what it was in June 1997?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I cannot; I shall write to the noble Earl with those figures.

EU Directive on Age Discrimination
2.41 p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government:
What consultation they plan to undertake regarding the implementation of the European Union directive on age discrimination.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Government are committed to introducing legislation

519
under the European employment directive outlawing age discrimination in employment and vocational training by December 2006. The Government have already sought views on a number of general age issues in the consultation document, Towards Equality and Diversity, and we aim to publish a further consultation document on specific proposals before the summer recess.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, while I thank the Minister for that reply, perhaps I may say that 2006 is not that far off either for Parliament or for business. Will we not need to see the proposed legislation by next year's Session, covering 2004–05, if employers are to be given a reasonable length of time to prepare? Can the Minister confirm that the practical impact of the directive will be that compulsory retirement ages are to be abolished?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the timetable we are following means that we shall consult this summer on specific proposals. A final consultation on the draft regulations will take place in 2004, and we intend to have the legislation in place, but not in force, by the end of 2004 so that people will have plenty of time to prepare before the 2006 implementation date. It is important that sufficient time is made available for those who need to make preparations.
One of the issues we shall look at is that of the upper age limit on unfair dismissal, but there is no point in consulting on it if one has already decided on what action to take.
Lord Sheldon: My Lords, my noble friend's answer to that question is very important indeed. Will the proposals he has suggested deal with the upper age limit for vital services in health such as bypass operations, kidney dialysis, breast cancer screening and so forth? Will it also deal with the special cost ceiling for expenditure on social care for the elderly? These are important matters and I hope that he will be able to respond positively to them.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the directive deals simply with issues of employment and training and therefore the matters raised by my noble friend would not be covered. However, I shall check on it and. if I am wrong, I shall let him know.
Lord Skelmersdale: Yes, my Lords, that is all very well, but in order for people to be employed near and beyond pension age, employers need access to insurance while potential employees need access to education and transport. Those I regard as just as important as a maximum or minimum age or goods
520
and services. Will the forthcoming White Paper on the single equal treatment commission cover these very important subjects?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as I said, these are simply regulations relating to the European directive. They will cover those matters and not other issues, which are of course important, but separate.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that he did not answer a fundamental question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross: will the envisaged legislation include the commitment to abolish the compulsory retirement age? Does he recollect a commitment to that effect made in another place by Andrew Smith on 19th March 2002? Does he also accept that I am not asking these questions because I have just had a significant birthday?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we were talking about consultation and this is one of the issues, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, on which we shall consult. We have of course the commitment referred to by the noble Lord.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: My Lords, can the Minister reassure me that the sensible proposal published in the pensions Green Paper in December 2002 to provide financial incentives to delay the taking of the state pension will not be delayed pending the introduction of the directive? As well as outlawing age discrimination in employment, does the Minister agree that we need to provide greater incentives to people to work beyond the age of 65, as do your Lordships?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the state pension is exempted from the scope of the directive and we intend to take advantage of Article 6(2), which allows occupational pension schemes to set ages of admission to or entitlement to retirement benefits, as well as the use of age criteria in actuarial calculations. As regards providing incentives for people to work longer, that concerns removing discrimination. I appreciate that Members of the House have a great interest in incentives for working longer, but that is not the subject of this legislation.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I recognise that if we are to avoid age discrimination it will be necessary to adjust the existing law in respect of unfair dismissal, particularly in terms of redundancy. But is my noble friend saying that the legislation will provide that if a person is dismissed from employment at the age of 65, irrespective of any other circumstances, such a dismissal will automatically be unfair?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I think that it is the other way around. Currently there is an age limit on bringing a claim for unfair dismissal. The question we are debating is whether that limit should be removed altogether if an employer does not have a retirement age.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister believe that, if the British people had been

521
aware in 1975 when they voted to stay in what they were assured was merely a common market, they would have voted for this kind of initiative from Brussels?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is probable that this will be an extremely popular piece of legislation, particularly in this House. If such a vision had been before them at the time, I think it would have moved people to be even more enthusiastic.

Criminal Records Bureau: Payments to Capita
2.47 p.m.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale Lord Corbett of Castle Vale asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional payments have been made to Capita in respect of changes to requirements made by the Government after the contract for processing applications to the Criminal Records Bureau was signed.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): My Lords, since the contract for processing disclosure applications to the Criminal Records Bureau was signed in August 2000, a total of £23.7 million has been paid to Capita in respect of changes to requirements. These are part of the normal contract changes that are to be expected with any green-field contract of this scale. Of the figure, £19 million is accounted for by payments for the introduction of the paper-based application process, for enhanced quality assurance and for system testing prior to the launch, and for the setting up of the second site at Darwen to ensure business continuity.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, I give a half-thanks to my noble friend for that response. Can she tell me why the Government did not disclose the fact that a compensation payment of £8.4 million had been made to Capita after the Home Office made sudden changes to the original contract for the Criminal Records Bureau? Is it not unacceptable that users should face a doubling of the charges made for checks to clear up the mess made by the Home Office without any date being set for introducing the 10 million a year basic checks that are expected to provide most of the income of the CRB? Further, can she guarantee that those teachers needing checks to take up new jobs this autumn will receive them without a repeat of the shambles last year?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, can I say straightaway that the arrangements which have been put in place in relation to teachers are now robust? Of course we accept that when the new procedure was introduced we did not see the response we would have expected.
The total amount paid to Capita as at the end of January last was £42.7 million, which includes the £23.7 million for the contract changes. When the
522
contract was awarded, we predicted the total contract value over 10 years to be £400 million, although that is clearly demand dependent.
Changes have been made and we believe that those changes are the right ones. Further, I can tell noble Lords that the procedure is now working far better than it did when it was first introduced.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, can the Minister confirm that of the target set with Capita of dealing with 95 per cent of cases within one week by March, only 20 per cent has been achieved? Seven out of eight targets have not been reached. Why is it necessary to hike up the fees by more than 300 per cent when there has been an utter failure on the part of those who administer the Criminal Records Bureau?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I do not accept that there has been an utter failure. The disclosure fee is determined by a combination of CRB costs and the volume of applications. Despite the increase in capacity in recent months the unit cost of producing disclosures remains higher than the initial estimate, which informed the decision to set the original fee at £12. This is mainly because of the deferment of the introduction of basic disclosures, which has meant that the volume of disclosures issued has been less than forecast, thereby pushing up the unit cost of producing each disclosure. Other factors have also impinged upon the decision.
Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts: My Lords, are any further extensions of the remit of the Criminal Records Bureau planned for the future?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord means by "further extensions". The enhanced provision that we have now is far better than we have ever had before. We now have an opportunity to achieve a joined-up approach to these matters. We wish to introduce further checks and we shall look at such matters as quickly as we are able to do so.

Queen's Counsel
2.52 p.m.
Earl Ferrers Earl Ferrers asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they propose to discontinue making recommendations for the appointment of Queen's Counsel.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government intend to publish a consultation paper in which the principal issue will be

523
whether the status of Queen's Counsel should continue to exist. I shall announce the timetable for the paper later this week.
Noble Lords: We cannot hear!
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord for what he said. The only trouble is that an awful lot of noble Lords could not hear. Would he care to say it again?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am sorry. The Government intend to publish a consultation paper in which the principal issue will be whether the status of Queen's Counsel should continue to exist. I shall announce the timetable for the paper later this week. I apologise for not being close enough to a microphone.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord on his supreme elevation. However, I am not quite certain to what he is elevated. I am not sure whether he is the Lord Chancellor or the Speaker of the House of Lords, the Keeper of the Queen's Conscience or the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs. Or perhaps he is Pooh-Bah and covers them all. Perhaps he will clarify the situation.
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that I had intended to ask his predecessor, who I thought would be answering the Question, whether or not he believed that there must be some limit beyond which the Government would not go in the dismantling and desecration of our constitution, pageantry, history and tradition? However, as the Government have decided to remove an office of 1,400 years standing, there is no point in asking that question as the answer would be "no".
So perhaps I may ask another question. The noble and learned Lord said that he will be producing a consultation document in regard to the abolition of QCs. Presumably he or the Government believe that that would be a good thing otherwise they would not produce a consultation document. Can the noble and learned Lord explain why he believes that would be a good thing and why the Bar, without the eloquence of his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, would be better? Why would it be better to have such people removed from the auspices of Queen's Counsel, which gives them a high-profile and much-treasured standing? I hope that the noble and learned Lord will say that of course the Government will ask the question but that they do not expect to do it.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his congratulations.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord does me a great privilege, but I am not learned.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I apologise for insulting the noble Earl in that way.
524
As my noble and learned predecessor made absolutely clear, the Government have an open mind in relation to the issue of Queen's Counsel. Those who are Queen's Counsel, including my noble and learned friends the former Lord Chancellor and Lord Williams of Mostyn, would be quite upset to think that their only role in life was to play a part in the pageantry. They are important and well-qualified people who make a real contribution to the law.
The question is whether it is appropriate that the state should give a kite mark from which people benefit substantially. Is it right to continue with the present system or are there better ways of doing it, as, for example, the Bar Council has suggested?
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord said that there will be consultation. Will the time allowed for that consultation be more, the same or less than the time allowed for consultation over the abolition of the post of Lord Chancellor; the decision to go for a supreme court rather than the House of Lords as the final court of appeal in this country; and the whole question of the appointment of the judiciary? Is it intended that the period of consultation on this issue will be longer than that given for those matters?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, as regards Queen's Counsel, there will be consultation for as long as it takes to come to the right conclusion. The effect of the announcements made last Thursday was that the role of Lord Chancellor would eventually be abolished to ensure that there would be a properly independent judiciary. It is wrong that a government Minister can sit as a judge.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, while it is plainly welcome that there will be consultation on the subject of Queen's Counsel, does the noble and learned Lord agree that if it is not the Government's job to appoint judges—as now appears to be accepted—it is certainly not the Government's job to choose Queen's Counsel? Is he willing to say that any further appointments that may be made to the rank of Queen's Counsel should not be made by him or by any other member of the Government?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, one of the issues to be consulted upon is precisely that. As I said in answer to the Question of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, we have an open mind on that issue. It would be wrong for me to predetermine the result.
Lord Renton: My Lords, having become a Queen's Counsel nearly 50 years ago—the only one senior to me is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Shawcross, who is 101 and, alas, cannot walk—perhaps I may ask the noble and learned Lord whether he agrees that, for years and years, the present system of appointing Queen's Counsel has worked well. It has enabled High

525
Court and other judges to be chosen more easily than if we did not have the system working, and working so well?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the process has worked well. My noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg introduced significant improvements in the way it works and it is widely regarded as a fair and transparent process. However, there are issues of principle as to whether it is right that the Government should determine whether or not someone should be promoted from one rank of the profession to another.
Baroness Buscombe: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord therefore accept that the silk system is a necessary and valuable mark of quality which helps to identify outstanding advocates at the Bar? Can he confirm that it is not the principle that requires reassessment but merely the method by which appointments are made?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, both the principle and the method need to be assessed. Is it right that once given such status it should stay with you for the rest of your life? Is it right that it should be done by the Government? Is it right as far as the market is concerned—that is, the people who use the services of barristers—that it should be done in this way? We need to consult widely on all these issues and to obtain properly informed views.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, in answer to one question, the noble and learned Lord said that it would be wrong for a politician, such as the Lord Chancellor, to be the head of the judiciary and to sit as a judge, which reason justified the abolition of the office. However, the restriction on the Lord Chancellor being the head of the judiciary or sitting as a judge could have been removed, leaving the Lord Chancellor to carry out all his other multifarious duties. His activity, which I fully agree should not have been continued, could have been stopped, leaving him in the position of running a very important and useful department. Why was it not done in that way?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I said that it would be wrong for a government Minister to sit as a judge. This is a question about Queen's Counsel, not about the announcements made at the end of last week.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I express my personal delight at seeing my noble and learned friend where he is. However, does he recognise that, although it may be highly desirable to take a long-term view of the process of appointing Queen's Counsel, it is utterly unsatisfactory to put the present system into suspense before anything has been invented to replace it? Does he recognise that members of the Bar have career plans in relation to the time at which they decide to apply for silk? Some decided not to apply this year. Does my noble and learned friend recognise that it would be
526
entirely unfair to deprive them, without any warning or replacement, of the opportunity to apply at the customary time next year?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, the position is that we think it right to suspend the competition. If the conclusion reached at the end of the process of consultation is that the system for applying for silk should continue, then the 2004 competition will he reinstated at a later date. If it is concluded that it should not continue, the position would be that it would have been right not to have had it.
Lord Elton: My Lords, in reply to my noble friend Lord Carlisle, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that, of course, there would be consultation about the future of QCs for as long as it takes to get the right answer. Was that a Freudian slip, or will the Government continue to consult until they get what they consider to be the right answer?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it was not a Freudian slip. When I said "the right answer", I meant the right answer in terms of what is best in the public interest.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord concedes that the present system of appointment is working well, will he say why consideration has now to be given to its abrogation?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, even though the system is well run, is transparent, and I believe that the best people are appointed to the rank of Queen's Counsel, there are issues of principle as to whether or not it is right that the Government should be able to promote someone within his or her own profession and whether that is the right way to deal with promotion within a profession.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, will my noble and learned friend assure us that the Law Society will also be consulted? In the last list of QCs, only one solicitor was appointed.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, of course I give that assurance.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what is the authority for the new moral code relating to who should be appointed? From where do the principles come? Will the noble and learned Lord give us a definition of them, rather than simply saying that they are wrong in principle? What are the principles?
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, it may be said that the Government's role in promoting someone in a profession from one rank to another would give the executive too much control over that profession. The criteria on which QCs are currently appointed are published.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, perhaps the noble and learned Lord will remind his colleagues that if they

527
continue indefinitely with the paint-stripping process to which they seem addicted, they may themselves ultimately appear dull and drab.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, that is certainly not our intention. In relation to all the changes that have been proposed, we seek to ensure that the results reached are in the public interest.

Fireworks Bill
3.6 p.m.
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Deceased Fathers) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Procedure of the House: Select Committee Report
3.7 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
1. APPLICATION OF THE ROTATION RULE TO THE NEW DOMESTIC COMMITTEES
The committee has considered what form of rotation rule should apply to the new domestic committees appointed at the start of this Session. We recommend as follows:
House Committee
A five-Session rotation rule should apply to Members other than those who are exempt.
Administration and works committee, information committee, refreshment committee and works of art committee
The normal three-Session rotation rule should apply to Members other than those who are exempt. Chairmen should be exempt for up to four Sessions from appointment. In order to avoid a sudden exodus of Members at the end of three Sessions, the Committee of Selection should apply the rules so as to count service on the relevant predecessor sub-committee of the Offices Committee, except where that would lead to disproportionate turnover.
2. QUORUM OF THE JOINT COMMITTEE ON HUMAN RIGHTS
The Joint Committee on Human Rights comprises six Members from each House. At present the quorum is three from each House, or two when evidence is being taken. The Chairman of the Joint Committee has written to the Chairman of Committees and the Leader of the House of Commons asking that the membership from each House be increased to seven, or the quorum be reduced to two from each House for all meetings, or preferably both.
528
We recommend that the Committee's quorum should be reduced to two Members from each House. At this stage we do not recommend any increase in the membership of the Committee.
3. RECORDING OF DEATHS OF MEMBERS IN THE MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
The committee has considered a proposal for recording in the Minutes of Proceedings the deaths of Members of the House, whether or not they are the subject of obituary tributes.
We recommend that such a record should be introduced with effect from the coming summer recess. The Minute entry would, in common with other notifications to the House which are not announced in the Chamber, record that the Lord Chancellor had acquainted the House that the member concerned had died.
4. ORDERS OF REFERENCE OF THE SELECT COMMITTEE ON THE MERITS OF STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
In its First Report of this Session the Liaison Committee recommended that, with effect from the next Session of Parliament, a Select Committee should be established to consider the merits of statutory instruments. The Liaison Committee agreed that this committee should be invited to agree the orders of reference of the committee.
We propose the following orders of reference for the new committee:
"There shall be a Select Committee consisting of nine Lords, to consider every instrument which is laid before each House of Parliament and upon which proceedings may be or might have been taken in either House of Parliament, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament; being—

(i) a statutory instrument, or a draft of a statutory instrument;

(ii) a scheme, or an amendment of a scheme, or a draft thereof, requiring approval by statutory instrument; or

(iii) any other instrument (whether or not in draft), where the proceedings in pursuance of an Act of Parliament are proceedings by way of an affirmative or negative resolution;

but excluding any Order in Council or draft Order in Council made or proposed to be made under paragraph 1 of the Schedule to the Northern Ireland Act 2000 and any remedial order or draft remedial order under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998 and any draft order proposed to be made under Section 1 of the Regulatory Reform Act 2001, or any subordinate provisions order made or proposed to be made under that Act;
with a view to determining whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to it on any of the following grounds—

(a) that it is politically or legally important or gives rise to issues of public policy likely to be of interest to the House;

(b) that it is inappropriate in view of the changed circumstances since the passage of the parent Act;

(c) that it inappropriately implements EU legislation;

(d) that it imperfectly achieves its policy objectives."

We propose that these terms of reference should be reviewed after the new committee has been in existence for one Session.
5. DEBATES ON SELECT COMMITTEE REPORTS
The committee considered a memorandum by the chairman of the European Union Committee putting forward proposals for improving the House's arrangements for securing time for debates on Select Committee reports.
Several of the proposals made - for example, in relation to the use of Fridays and "spare Wednesdays", and the linking of European policy issues to party debates on Wednesdays—are matters for the usual channels and the parties rather than for this committee, and the committee invited those concerned to consider the proposals further.
The committee will give further consideration to the procedural steps which would be needed to allow some reports to be debated in the Moses Room in a manner similar to the Grand Committee procedure for Bills.
6. APPELLATIONS: ARCHBISHOPS SITTING AS LORDS TEMPORAL
The Committee considered a proposal that an Archbishop sitting as a Peer should be referred to as "the noble and most reverend Lord" instead of "the noble and right reverend Lord" as at present.
The only Peer in this category is Lord Eames. He is referred to as "most reverend" outside the House of Lords. The present practice of the House is therefore anomalous and we recommend the proposed change to the House.
Retired Archbishops will, in accordance with practice outside the House, continue to be referred to as "right reverend".
7. THURSDAY SITTINGS
The Committee considered a letter from Lord Carter calling attention to the proceedings on his Starred Question on 4 June and inviting the committee to review the arrangement whereby the House sits at 11 a.m. on Thursdays but adjourns between 1.30 and 3 p.m. The committee will examine this matter further at its next meeting and proposes to seek the views of Members of the House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Speaker of the House of Lords
3.8 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall make a Statement concerning the Speakership of this House.
Last Thursday, the Government announced a package of proposals, including the following:
"Reform of the Speakership of the House of Lords. The Leader of the House of Lords will consult with the other parties, and the House as a whole, on changes to Standing Orders enabling a new Speaker, who is not a Minister, to be in place after the recess, subject to the wishes of the House".
Let me put those words in the context of the package announced last week. Briefly, we propose to separate the powers which have until now been held together by the Lord Chancellor. Within the executive, we have created a Department for Constitutional Affairs. On the judicial side, we propose to create a Supreme Court and an independent Judicial Appointments Commission; and, within the legislature, we invite this House to choose its own Speaker rather than having one chosen for it and imposed by the Prime Minister.
I should make it clear at once that it is only this last part of the package which is the subject of this Statement. Noble Lords who use this occasion to make points about the wider package will take time from those who, rightly and prudently, wish to inquire only about the Speakership.
With regard to the Speakership, the situation today is unchanged. We have a Lord Chancellor, who is Speaker ex officio. He is bound by Standing Orders either to attend the House or to seek Leave of Absence. My noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor authorised me to say that although he is eager to proceed with reform of' his office, he accepts that in respect of the Speakership he is subject to the wishes of this House.
However, we now have an opportunity. The Prime Minister has said to this House, in effect, "I no longer propose to insist on imposing on you, as an
530
independent House of Parliament, the Speaker of my choice". I have the advantage of being able to hear many sotto voce comments, but I had better resist temptation. If you wish, my Lords, you may choose your own presiding officer.
Why are the Government doing this? There are two reasons. First, we wish to reform the office of Lord Chancellor, and that necessarily involves reforming the Speakership of this House. But there is a better reason than that mere necessity. We believe that it is right that this House should choose its own presiding officer.
It is in our view not appropriate for a government Minister to be the Speaker of an independent legislative chamber. If he has powers, there is a conflict of interest, real or apparent, every time he exercises them. If he has no powers, in this age it is a curious use of his time.
Most assemblies choose who is to preside over their deliberations. The devolved assemblies created by Acts of this Parliament, including, of course., this Chamber, have that privilege, and I propose to your Lordships that we should think very carefully about whether we should also have that privilege.
As the Leader, I hope to see this as a step in the continuing renewal and invigoration of this House, alongside the code of conduct, alongside our new working practices and the increased resources for Opposition parties and the Cross-Bench Peers.
I have tried to explain why we invite the House to take this power to choose its own presiding officer, and now that I have done that, I turn to the process of consultation. For the whole of this coming week when the House is sitting, my door will be open to any of your Lordships who wish to see me. I welcome views in writing. I will hear, of course, with every appropriate care, whatever noble Lords have to say. I shall also consult the usual channels, as I always do.
Stripped of all the hyperbole, the main question is: should we take this opportunity to set up a mechanism to appoint our own presiding officer, whatever the name of that person may be? By the end of this week, I hope that we shall know if there is any degree of consensus at all. I am conscious of the fact that so many of your Lordships have attended this afternoon, desiring to find consensus.
Next week, with your. Lordships' leave, and if circumstances allow—I underline that parenthesis—I shall make a further Statement, probably on Wednesday 25th June.
At the appropriate point, I hope to be able to put proposals to the Procedure Committee for changes to Standing Orders. The Procedure Committee, after deliberation, would report to the House. If the report were favourable, and if your Lordships agreed to it, I would then move the changes to Standing Orders.
I said "at the appropriate point". What that point is will depend on the soundings I am able to take, as widely as possible. If the mood of the House is to move

531
swiftly, we are prepared to move swiftly. If the mood of the House is to move more slowly, we shall have to move more slowly.
I cannot emphasise too strongly the words,
"subject to the wishes of the House".
If I put proposals to the Procedure Committee, it is not bound to commend them to your Lordships. If it does, the House may amend or reject them, as it has in the past. If, in the end, the House chooses to say to a Prime Minister with a very substantial majority in the House of Commons—
Noble Lords: Oh.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, this is not a threat—it is an observation of fact. It is useful to hear the rest of the sentence before premature ejaculation. If, in the end, the House says to a Prime Minister with a very large majority in the Commons—and this is an important aspect of where we are at the moment—"Please continue to choose a Speaker for us", I am sure the Prime Minister will oblige.
3.13 p.m.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord for his Statement this afternoon. May I be the first in this House to congratulate him on his promotion from Lord Privy Seal to Lord President of the Council? We wish him well in performing his new and, no doubt, onerous duties.
The Statement we heard this afternoon was a typically artful performance that blithely ignored the vast bulk of the massively controversial changes affecting this House. I have to tell the noble and learned Lord that the more he tried to claim it was all part of a smooth and carefully planned exercise and not a by-product of the most shambolic and botched reshuffle in living memory, the more I saw, in the mind's eye, the grin of Comical Ali, claiming every Iraqi defeat as a glorious victory. Was there a word of apology in this Statement? My Lords, there was none.
The announcements last Thursday affect the privileges, composition, operation and authority of this House in innumerable ways. Every one of us in this House is potentially affected. I have a view that doubtless seems old-fashioned in No. 10, but in my book, Members of a House of Parliament should never, in any circumstances, have to find out about plans to turn their House upside down by scrabbling after an Alastair Campbell press release.
Peers on all sides have said to me they felt it a grotesque discourtesy to this House—the very thing the House is entitled to look to its Leader to protect it from.
Last Thursday, the No. 10 press secretary told us we would be having a new Speaker. Now, today, the Leader of the House tell us we cannot discuss anything other than the narrow point of a Speaker. So perhaps the noble and learned Lord can say when this House
532
will have a chance to express a view on what he calls the wider package, and a proper debate on the future of the Lord Chancellor and his department.
With the Prime Minister, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is the architect of the plans. His career gets the biggest boost from it all. When will the noble and learned Lord make a statement to this House, and will we therefore have a full debate on those plans before the recess?
The Leader of the House can spend his time consulting over the next few weeks on a problem that never needed to exist and does not yet need to be solved—the Speakership. Or he can uphold this House's rights to be informed and to be heard on sweeping changes affecting us all. May I suggest that he might give more attention to the bigger and more urgent job? We, for our part, will co-operate with his micro-consultation on the Speakership only when we have seen the macro-picture and debated the full plans. I see no attraction in piecemeal and precipitate reform.
The noble and learned Lord placed great stress on the House not being presided over by a Minister. But by the very nature of the office, the Lord Chancellor is not a career-hungry politician, on the make for political gain. The noble and learned Lord's case was overstrained. When I look at the likes of my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern, I do not see political careerism on the Woolsack as the greatest danger that has faced this House in the past.
The noble and learned Lord had another line. Your Lordships, he said, are somehow less than other assemblies because we do not choose our presiding officer. Once again, with the advocate's practised skill, he slides over the main point. Other assemblies, including another place, are disciplined by their presiding officers. We are not—we are, uniquely, a self-regulating House; and in my view, we should remain a self-regulating House. Not even the most powerful government Minister can dictate to this House on how we should run our affairs. So I am less worried by that than by the baggage that might come with the creation of a powerful new Lord Speaker the noble and learned Lord suggests.
When this Prime Minister offers gifts, I long ago learned to look inside the horse. In any case, if we are in the game of constitutional upheaval, does the Lord Chancellor need to be chosen by the Prime Minister at all? Many take the view that it lent much to the dignity of this House that its presiding officer was the holder of the highest secular office under the Crown.
It would be right for me, and easy, to pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, whom I see in his place. When I read of the brutal end to his long and faithful service to his master, was I alone in murmuring the name "Wolsey"? I had many disagreements with the noble and learned Lord, but he was a remarkable Lord Chancellor and he never shirked his duty to preside in this House. It is good to hear that his successor is prepared to do the same, and how splendidly he sits on the Woolsack this afternoon. That announcement removes any urgency to address this question in isolation before broader issues are resolved.

533
Last Thursday's proclamation unleashed huge issues. Many seem obscure, but they involve everyone in Britain. When will the Government understand that lasting constitutional change must be rooted in consent and cross-party agreement; and, if I may be bold enough to add, far-reaching legal change that, understandably, seems good to many lawyers, must also carry the consent of those of us who are not lawyers? It is not clear that a new Supreme Court necessarily will.
Our country has enjoyed 350 years of stability since a great civil war decided the primacy of Parliament in our land. In those long years, we have enjoyed a freedom, peace and security at home that no other nation on earth has known; a judiciary free from the temptation or taint of politics; a parliamentary system able to sustain tumultuous change, resting on the flexibility of an unwritten constitution. Now, all of a sudden, the Prime Minister and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor say that well tried practice has no place in a modern world, and they will not permit that to last. Are they so sure that they are right and that the long years of constitutional experience are wrong? if so, they are bold men. During the next two years, we shall no doubt have the opportunity not afforded to us today to test the mettle of those ideas.
3.20 p.m.
Lord McNally: My Lords, it would be desirable to have consensus on constitutional proposals. However, it is worth reflecting that probably the greatest constitutional change that this House ever passed—the Reform Act 1832—was carried by a single vote. The greatest constitutional reform of the 20th century, the Liberal government's reform of this place, was carried under the threat of the creation of 1,000 Peers. Consensus on such matters is not always possible, although I share the belief of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, that "shambles" and "dog's breakfast" are the words that come to mind when considering this latest surge in constitutional reform.
However, we must not allow criticism of the proposals to prevent us welcoming the opportunity now on offer to the House to elect its own presiding officer. is the Lord President of the Council aware that noble Lords on these Benches welcome the Statement, and that we shall do what we can to expedite the creation of the new office? We shall resist the temptation either to bounce the House or to drive through the proposals without full and inclusive consultation.
Regarding the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, can the noble and learned Lord tell the House whether the proposals mean the end of self-regulation in terms of the choice of Speakers and good order, which has been one of the more civilised aspects of this House? Does he agree that the system works at least as effectively as the discipline by the Speaker in another place?
If the Minster is to carry the confidence of the House in taking the matter forward, would it not be useful after the period of consultation—and his
534
promised Statement on the 25th June—to set up a small ad hoc Select Committee of this House with a mandate to report by the return of Parliament after the party conferences in October? That would produce the necessary momentum to have the new presiding officer in place by the November State Opening of Parliament.
The Statement is not helped in terms of confidence or trust by the statement made by the new Leader of the Commons, Peter Hain, about the Government having "unfinished business" with the House of Lords, and his groundless accusations about our filibustering on legislation. Would the Lord President of the Council agree that what is needed is an early statement of intent by the Government on the next stages of House of Lords reform? In the meantime, does the Lord President of the Council agree that one role of a presiding officer directly elected by the whole House would be to defend the House of Lords, its rights and responsibilities, against government Ministers like Mr Hain, whose real complaint against the Lords is that we are a check against the abuse of executive power? Does the Minster agree that a reformed House of Lords should be more effective and powerful in that role?
It is clear that there is much fine tuning to be done, from the relationship of the new presiding officer to the Chairman of Committees, to what he should actually be called, and so on. However, we believe that this is an offer that we should not refuse. We should act with careful consideration but not interminable delay.
Like the advice given to the Irish traveller—we would not have started from here. But as we are here, we should act decisively to put in place a new office that will help to modernise the workings of the House and strengthen its role both in relation to another place and to the Government. These Benches will co-operate with the Government to that end.
3.25 p.m.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I wonder whether it would be unduly disagreeable to attend to the principle of what is being proposed. I am grateful for the robust remarks of the noble Lord, Lord McNally, not all of which were uncritical but the thrust of which was helpful. He spoke, rightly, about the possible abuse of executive power, to which I tried to allude earlier. As I have said to your Lordships before, and I believe it profoundly, it is a matter of perfect indifference to me whether there is a Conservative Government or a Labour Government with a large majority in the House of Commons. Our constitutional arrangements and our society require a degree of check and balance. It should not he overlooked that when Mrs Thatcher had a large majority in the House of Commons there were about 500 to 600 Conservative Peers in this Chamber, and I think—although it all seems so long ago—about 100 Labour Peers. We did not hear many complaints from the Conservative Opposition about abuse of executive power. However, I might have been asleep, and missed them.

535
The comments of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, bear mute testimony to the suggestion put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, that the rank of Queen's Counsel ought not to be abolished. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, demonstrated every conceivable subtlety, skill and sullen art of the Queen's Counsel, in that he addressed points that I had never made and declined to deal with any that I had made. I say to the noble Lord, "Welcome to the club".
He said that I proposed a powerful Speaker. Nothing of the sort was said by me. The matter that needs to be decided is twofold. First, should we have the power, which I believe we should, to elect our own presiding officer? Secondly, what should the functions of such an officer be? Some of the functions of a quasi-Speaker are exercised by me on your Lordships' behalf at the moment. For example, at Question Time I have the duty always to favour the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, and the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil.
On behalf of the House, I can decide whether or not to accept Private Notice Questions. The point that I wish to make is serious: should a Minister of the Government have that power? I do my best to exercise it fairly. The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, will agree that sometimes I have permitted Questions to be heard—Questions that he was surprised I had allowed. That is not the principle. The principle is this: if your Lordships felt that a particular topic ought to be discussed, should a government Minister decide on the issue?
Those questions are not cosmetic. They are matters of great importance. If one looks around at other assemblies—the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Assembly, the Northern Ireland Assembly—they all elect their presiding officers. The United States House of Representatives does the same—as do the Australian House of Representatives, the Australian Senate, and the German Bundestag and Bundesrat. Your Lordships will be pleased to hear that they are joined in that category of freedom and independence by the Russian Federation Council—the upper chamber—and the Russian State Duma. If the opportunity is offered for us to assert our independence by choosing our own presider and then deciding on the functions that she or he might exercise, it strikes many of us as being strange that the matter should be regarded as a Government plot.
There are three aspects to the proposals. First, that there should be a wholly and clearly independent supreme court in which no Minister sits. I shall take as an example the text of the noble Lord, Lord Blaker, who I am glad to see is in his place. If I had returned from Zimbabwe, or shown the keen interest that the noble Lord has shown in the affairs of that country, and told your Lordships that President Mugabe had one of his ministers in the Supreme Court and that he had appointed and anointed the speaker of the upper house, I think that noble Lords would have said that that was inappropriate.
536
The Prime Minster is saying, "Please consider, my Lords, whether you wish to elect your own Speaker. When the executive and the judiciary sometimes clash, should not the judiciary be appointed by a wholly independent judicial appointments commission?" If anyone can fairly, reasonably, rationally or sanely say that that is a gross abuse of executive power, I beg to part company with the misuse and the abuse of the English language.
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords—
Lord Morgan: My Lords—
Lord Denham: My Lords—
Lord Naseby: My Lords—
Noble Lords: This side!
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, we do not seem to have an independently elected Speaker, so it is my noble friend Lord Morgan.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, does my noble and learned friend agree that, on the substance as opposed to the politics of these changes, specialist authorities on the constitution, such as the University of London constitutional unit, endorse all these proposals on devolution, on the supreme court and on disaggregating the Lord Chancellor's judicial, legislative and executive roles? Does not that process necessarily include allowing the Lords to choose their own chairman, as happens in every other upper House in Europe and indeed in the Commonwealth? Why should we be different? The noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, with exquisite phrasing, mentioned "precipitate reform" in terms rather reminiscent of the Duke of Wellington in 1832. I would point out to the House that the position of Lord Chancellor was created in 610 and that 1,400 years does not suggest precipitate reform.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am most grateful to my choice as first contributor. I am not quite so hot on history. Today it is 1,400 years, whereas, last week, the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, told me that it was 800 years. But times does pass quickly sometimes.
Lord Denham: My Lords, is the noble and learned Lord aware that the office he holds has always been regarded as first and foremost that of Leader of the whole House, and only then as leader of the government party within it? Were not your Lordships therefore right to think that they could look to him for protection from the quite exceptional indignities heaped on the House last Thursday? The noble and learned Lord is one of the most honourable and courteous Members of this House. What I really do find frightening therefore is not so much that he should ignore the conventions of the House in this way, but the thought—and on this he has given a couple of hints

537
this afternoon—that he might feel that the size of the government majority in another place gave him a moral right and indeed duty to do so.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I said exactly the opposite. I repeat: it is a matter of perfect indifference to me in this constitutional sense whether the overwhelmingly large majority in the Commons was a Conservative one under Mrs Thatcher or a Labour one under Mr Blair. I said that twice. The point is that if we have a very large, some would say overweening. majority in the House of Commons at any time, this House needs to be properly equipped to be an effective and efficient check and balance.
Lord Denham: Will the noble and learned Lord please answer the point?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am answering the point, which I think, with great respect to him, the noble Lord quite unusually has wholly mistaken.
It is said that my duty is to protect the interests of this House, and I hope that I do so. However, I repeat: what is being offered is not the accretion of central executive power; it is in fact the offer to do away with it in the three areas that I have identified. I will stick to the one that matters for this afternoon, if I may. The Prime Minister is saying to your Lordships, "As an independent constituent part of a constitutional Parliament, would it not be prudent for you to elect your own Speaker?" I see nothing discourteous in that.
I think that it is absolutely sensible that these issues should be discussed. If it came to my opinion, which let us not forget is in a minority—about 27 per cent of the vote on a good day—I would say this. If this House wishes to reinvigorate itself, I believe that it ought to. It ought to do its work better. Part of its work is to check a central executive. If we want to do that work, how is it that we do not feel bold and confident enough to elect our own Speaker? To my knowledge, and as my noble friend Lord Morgan said, no comparable Chamber has a Speaker imposed on it by the diktat of the government.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, I should like to raise a specific point which the noble and learned Lord has already faced several times. It seems to me that there is a division between quite a number of Members of this House, if not a majority, to whom the issue of the appointment of a Speaker is a very significant issue indeed and those who feel differently. The word "Speaker" has very clear connotations in this building: it is someone who controls, as happens in the House of Commons, the conduct of the debate. I can well imagine that that arrangement impresses many people, particularly those from the Commons, as the ideal system.
Uniquely, this House—I am sorry if this sounds pompous—controls itself and in my view that works very well indeed. As the noble and learned Lord said, the House has occasionally to be helped by someone sitting on the Government Front Bench, but in my
538
experience, the most junior Whip can get up and people will sit down. The House will not tolerate it if that is not respected.
The House of Commons is totally different and I think that a careful study of some of the points of order which can go on for four pages before a debate begins might be a lesson to us. The Statement sounded slightly ominous as regards whether the Prime Minister, left with no proposals from here, would present some of his own and the question is really whether a full-time Speaker will be imposed and have regulation as his main priority.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I do not dissent from the noble Lord's analysis, which I tried, I hope, to meet when I spoke earlier. We need to distinguish between the post itself and the functions attached to that post. I myself think that we do much better than the House of Commons, for example, in having a speakers list. In many ways, the self-regulation is an attractive part of this House. That light-touch self-regulation does not need to change if we elect our own presiding officer. It does not need to change at all. Indeed, it cannot change without the Standing Orders being changed, and the Standing Orders cannot be changed at the behest of the Government because we have only 27 per cent of the vote. So the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, and I, not for the first time, are in agreement about the analysis. If we distinguish between the post itself and the functions to be carried out by a presiding officer or Speaker—or whatever name might be chosen—we can continue in a more apparently effective and independent way.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord has asked us quite properly to focus on the speakership of this House, but the post of the Lord Chancellor has ramifications on a wide area of British life. I wonder what consultative processes will be engaged in and what thought will be given to those aspects of that office if it is abolished, not least the ecclesiastical patronage in England and the rights of parishioners which is presently exercised by the office of the Lord Chancellor.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, the right reverend Prelate makes a very good point. There will be two consultation papers specifically dealing with a judicial appointments commission and the question of an independent supreme court. Plainly there will have to be consultation on the ecclesiastical issues and others. Indeed, the Lord Chancellor is visitor to many universities; so apparently is the Lord President of the Council. These matters need to be consulted on. However, there is no difficulty in having informed, courteous consultation. I am bound to say that in all my dealings with him over many years, the

539
Lord Chancellor has always been the most open-minded person, willing to reflect and to take advice, even if it was not his original view.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, we have not yet heard from the Liberal Democrat Back Benches.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness. Perhaps I may draw the attention of the Leader of the House to a comment made by my noble friend Lord McNally when he suggested the setting up of a committee to look at the wider issue. The Leader of the House says the two issues are whether we should elect a Speaker and what the powers should be. It may be better to put those matters the other way around and examine first what the powers should be and then what kind of person will be necessary to exert those powers.
I am very much at one with the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, in his analysis of the situation. There is no doubt—I believe this view is shared all round the House—that we would greatly prefer to remain totally self-regulatory. However, if that is the case, from time to time we shall have to exert a little more self discipline. When I sit on the Woolsack or in the chair in Grand Committee I hear speeches at Second Reading, Committee stage and Report stage going over and over the same matters and I begin to wonder whether we are as self-regulating as we might be. I offer that as a cautionary word. I certainly do not want to see changes from self-regulation, but my noble friend's suggestion of a Select Committee to consider this matter in a broader spectrum than we are doing in the present consultations may be a good idea.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I shall certainly pay every attention and regard to what the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord McNally, say. It is true that there are many attractions to self-regulation as the noble Lord, Lord Tordoff, says. He has substantial and gloomy experience to indicate the disadvantages sometimes of endless Second Reading speeches—noble Lords who say, "I shall not be able to be present at the end of the debate, but nevertheless I am going to offer you my chosen morsels". There are aspects, even in such an immaculate body, that might be capable of improvement.
Baroness Strange: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, many noble Lords want to speak so perhaps we can keep questions short. Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Richard, will speak first followed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, who caught my eye.
Lord Richard: My Lords, I am much obliged to my noble friend. Is my noble and learned friend aware that
540
a clear distinction is to be made in this respect between what is proposed and the way in which it has been proposed? Perhaps I can assure him, tell him, reassure him, inform him that as far as I am concerned, I find considerable merit in the package of proposals that the Government put forward. Is he also aware that if there has to be intense consultation on what has been decided and announced, there also should be intense consultation on those matters that are still in the process of formulation? The most significant of those is the one that my noble and learned friend is dealing with today; namely, the issue of the Speakership or otherwise of this House.
For my noble and learned friend to tell the House that representations have to be in by next Friday is not very sensible, given the mood in the House. Perhaps I may follow the statements made by the noble Lords, Lord McNally and Lord Tordoff. There is a case for considering what we want the Speaker to do before deciding on the kind of person and electoral system required. I urge my noble and learned friend, in the interests of the Government as much as anything else, to take on board the necessity of ironing out this matter before reaching the stage of placing proposals in furtherance of the aim.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, that is a perfectly reasonable approach. My noble friend Lord Richard, of Ammanford, said that we must disentangle the principles that I am trying to put before your Lordships from the manner of the announcement. Returning to the observation made by the noble Lord, Lord Denham, if there was discourtesy, I regret it. I apologise for it if your Lordships saw it in that way.
We may be able to disentangle some of these matters. The Government are perfectly entitled to set out their policies in the same way as they do in a manifesto. I agree with what the noble Lord has said—echoed by many of your Lordships—that we need some consultation in as great a depth as possible, but not, to echo the noble Lord, Lord McNally, at as great a length as possible. I did not say that representations had to be in by next Friday; I said that if by Wednesday 25th June I were able to report on a consensus, if circumstances allowed—I underlined that word—I would report again to your Lordships. My door is always open. If your Lordships have proposals they will be given respectful attention. I repeat again that as an independent House we should not be content to tolerate a Speaker imposed upon us, dependent on which government win an election.
Lord Howe of Aberavon: My Lords, perhaps I may follow the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Richard. He made points with which I have substantial agreement. Does the noble and learned Lord the Lord President of the Council detect an uncharacteristic and uncomfortable lack of empathy between himself and this House, which normally has the greatest respect for him? Does he not understand that the reason for that is probably that all the measures comprised in the package presented on

541
Thursday have had substantial and growing support for a long time? The concept of a different approach to the appointment of the judiciary has been much canvassed over many years; appointing a supreme court was supported in an eloquent speech by the former Lord Chief Justice not long ago; and even the propositions that he has advanced in respect of the management of this House have been considered. They may be novel but they cannot be regarded as earth-shattering in their novelty.
However, the fact is that they have not been considered in the light of the consideration offered by the noble Lords, Lord Tordoff and Lord Marsh. The overwhelming fact is that this package of proposals, whatever their intrinsic merits, arrives in the form of a pre-emptive bunch of products, produced as a mismanaged political change of governance. They would not have been introduced in that way in those circumstances except for that background. My concern is that sound measures, designed to enhance the independence of our judicial system, may well be pre-emptively tainted by the turbulent political circumstances in which they have been introduced and by the haste with which they are now being followed.
Is the noble and learned Lord aware that practically the whole of the Lord Chancellor's private office, which is next to the room that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and I occupy, has already decamped—done a runner—to some building we know not where? That may be a perfectly sensible thing as part of a sensible change in the structure of government, but it is part of a regime change in which everything is happening with the utmost speed. It risks destroying the necessary confidence for the fundamental constitutional changes being proposed.
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on that last point, I cannot remember how many times noble Lords have urged me and my colleagues to free up some of the accommodation presently occupied by the Lord Chancellor's Department. I am not sure that that was the best point of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, as he used to tell me when he sat as chairman of Glamorgan quarter sessions when I appeared in front of him.
I am pleased that the noble and learned Lord said that in principle there is much to be commended in the package of proposals. I accept that there are feelings of mortification and disappointment and a feeling of discourtesy. If there was that feeling I regret it and apologise for it. In the interests of the long-term constitutional future of this country and of this House, I hope that we can do as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Howe, suggests and attend to the principles that he commended.
Baroness Strange: My Lords, without wishing to tangle with my noble and learned friend, the honeyed-tongued Leader of the House, does he agree that in this House we do not have a Speaker, we do not have a presiding officer, but we have a Lord Chancellor whom in the past we have loved and revered and whom we look forward to loving and revering in the future?
542
Does he further agree that the term "supreme court" is not very British and that the word "modern" is relative and is out of date as soon as it has happened?
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, on behalf of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. and, indeed, Lady Falconer, I am certain that he looks forward to the continuing love and cherishment which has been offered. I am sorry to intrude on the noble Baroness's view, but we have a Speaker: he is the Lord Chancellor and he is described as the Speaker in our Standing Orders. This country has a supreme court: it has had one since the Supreme Court Act 1835.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords—
Lord St John of Fawsley: My Lords—
Lord Williams of Mostyn: My Lords, I am afraid that the mandatory 20 minutes is up. Of course, had we a Speaker, he could extend it.

Regional Assemblies: Referendums
3.50 p.m.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to repeat a Statement made today in another place by my right honourable friend the Deputy Prime Minister. The Statement is as follows:
"With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to make a Statement on referendums for establishing elected regional assemblies in the English regions. First, though, I would like to apologise to the House for the stories that have appeared in the press over the weekend and this morning. There has been intense speculation about which regions will move to a referendum, but the source of the stories appears to have been a leaked Cabinet Committee letter. I assure the House that the letter was not released on anyone's authority, and apologise again that the leak occurred.
"In 1997 this Government inherited one of the most centralised systems of government in the western world. As the House knows, we have reversed that legacy.
"During the past six years, we have carried out a far-reaching and radical programme of constitutional change. We have decentralised government and transformed our political system through devolution to Scotland and Wales; we are continuing our reforms of the House of Lords and modernising local government; we have restored democratic city-wide government to London; and we have set up strong regional development agencies in England which have helped increase investment and employment in all our regions to record levels. We have strengthened regional policy and helped to create a network of eight voluntary regional chambers.

543
"In May 2002 we published our White Paper, Your Region, Your Choice. It set out our plans for elected regional assemblies in those regions in which people wanted them. It contained proposals for a new regional tier of government which would take powers and responsibilities from central government—not from local authorities.
"The White Paper said that regional assemblies would make a real difference, thanks to powers over economic development, jobs, investment, transport, planning, housing, culture, arts, and sport.
"Elected regional assemblies will bring greater democracy and a new political voice to the regions. They will reduce bureaucracy rather than increase it, and will—above all—provide regional accountability.
"Last month, the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act became law. Today I am taking the first steps under that Act to deliver our undertaking to hold the first regional referendums during this Parliament. We have no intention of forcing elected regional assemblies on any region. However, it is clear to me that in some regions voters want this opportunity. I intend to give them that choice.
"The Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act sets out what must happen before I can call any referendums. First, I must consider the level of interest in the region in holding a referendum. Secondly, the Boundary Committee for England must have made recommendations on options for unitary local government in those parts of the region which currently have two tiers of local authorities.
"On 2nd December 2002 we started a soundings exercise in the eight regions outside London. We gave the soundings document a wide distribution, and asked for responses by 3rd March. The House will recall that the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Bill was amended in the Lords in April to allow for a second question in the referendums on the options for unitary local government. The soundings exercise was extended to take this into account, and we asked for further responses by 16th May.
"In assessing levels of interest, I have considered all relevant responses. I have today published a summary of the responses and other evidence that I have considered. That document has been placed in the Library and made available in the Vote Office.
"In total we estimate that at least 50,000 people were involved in the soundings exercise; a lot more than in a typical opinion poll. Over 7,000 direct responses were from individuals. The rest came from organisations or individuals responding in a representative capacity, for example through surveys or petitions. Although these responses represented the views of many individuals, they were each recorded as single responses.
"I do not think that it will surprise the House that levels of interest in a referendum vary between the different regions of England. In some regions,
544
interest was low. In the West Midlands, only 16 per cent of respondents said that they wanted a referendum. In the East and South East of England around 35 per cent said they wanted a referendum; and in the South West and East Midlands the figure was around 40 per cent.
"Taken together with other views, information and evidence, these figures show that there is insufficient evidence in the West Midlands, the East of England, the South East, the South West and the East Midlands to justify a referendum being held now.
"I am therefore not directing the Boundary Committee to undertake local government reviews in those regions.
"The picture is quite different in the three Northern regions. In the North East and North West over half of all respondents wanted a referendum, and in my own region, Yorkshire and the Humber, almost three quarters said "Yes". In all three northern regions there was significant and widespread interest in holding a referendum from the business community, trade unions, local authorities and the voluntary sector.
"Taking all the evidence together, I am satisfied that interest in a referendum is high in all three regions. Therefore, I am pleased to announce to the House today that it is my intention to hold referendums at the first opportunity in the North East, the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber.
"I expect that opportunity to come in the autumn of 2004. I have therefore today directed the Boundary Committee for England to carry out a local government review in each of these three regions. These reviews will cover the existing two-tier areas of Durham, Northumberland, Cheshire, Cumbria, Lancashire and North Yorkshire County Councils. The Boundary Committee will recommend at least two options for structural change in relation to each area, and voters in those areas will be given a choice as to which unitary option they prefer.
"Reviews in the three northern regions will begin shortly. Copies of the guidance to the Boundary Committee have been placed in the Library.
"Building on the proposals in the regions White Paper, we intend to publish a draft Bill setting out the powers and functions for elected regional assemblies in those regions that want them. If the people vote "Yes" in the referendums, we could have the first elected assemblies up and running early in the next Parliament. This will be another significant step on the road to regional government for England.
"It will take forward the Government's commitment to develop a strong regional voice in all eight regions. The regional chambers, the RDAs, and the Government Offices will all continue to ensure that there is a distinctive regional voice from every region—whether or not there is an elected regional assembly.

545
"This Government remain committed to a strong regional policy which will benefit the country as a whole. We are offering the people of the three northern regions an historic opportunity; an opportunity we offered the people of Scotland, Wales and London before them; an opportunity for the northern regions to choose how they are governed.
"This is an opportunity to strengthen democracy and reduce bureaucracy, an opportunity to gain a new political voice and for greater prosperity—for more growth, more jobs, more investment. It is an opportunity for those regions that have the desire for change to determine their own future.
"Today's announcement is good for democracy, good for the English regions and good for the whole of the UK.
"I commend this Statement to the House". My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, I thank the Minister for bringing this unsurprising Statement to the House today. I say "unsurprising" because it has been clear from the very first discussions that took place on this matter that the Deputy Prime Minister was hell-bent on ensuring that regional government in the areas in which he believed that he could achieve a vote—any sort of vote—in favour would be implemented, whatever happened. I cannot extend the usual courtesy of thanking him for letting me have previous sight of the Statement. It has taken me until 3.45 p.m. to get the Statement from another place—not from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. I managed eventually to get a copy from the Minister's office or through the Whips' office at the same time.
The paper on the soundings exercise to which the Minister refers, which gives extremely interesting details of the results of that exercise, is embargoed. It was embargoed until the start of the Statement today. It was only with the most extreme efforts that I managed to get a copy of the document.
The normal courtesies that are extended to the opposition clearly have misfired or miscued in my case. The other opposition party may have fared better, but I should like to place on record that I do not expect very much from the Government, but I do expect an opportunity to see what I am going to talk about.
There has not been a strong response to the soundings exercise, which, as the Statement says, was implemented in December and was to be finalised in March. It was extended in March and then again, we understand, into May, because of the derisory result that was emerging. When I checked the ODPM's website in early April, there had been 7,000 responses in total. I am told that a month later there were 8,000. We are now told that there were 50,000 responses; that is, replies from the whole country. Only 7,000 of those replies have been received from individuals. It emerges from the paper to which I have now been made privy that in the North West there have been 3,611 responses in favour—and one should bear in mind that most of
546
those, given that 7,000 responses were from individuals, must have come from organizations—with 336 against. In the North East—good grief—there were 733 responses in favour, and in York and Humber, there were 1,000 responses in favour.
The Deputy Prime Minister tries to hide behind the fig leaf that a MORI poll would have produced the same sort of result, but a soundings exercise conducted in the way that this one has been deserves to produce the sort of results that it has. It is therefore hard to see how the Deputy Prime Minister has come to the conclusion that there was "high" interest in the three regions that I have mentioned and could possibly justify his decision to go ahead.
If a judgment can be made by the Deputy Prime Minister on the soundings with such a paltry turn-out, will the Minister tell us what level of participation in a referendum would be so low for him to decide that there would be insufficient support for regional government to be introduced? Is it still the intention that that decision, following a referendum, will be for the Deputy Prime Minister to make alone? If that is so, and we reside on the result from these soundings, that decision would be made on a very low basis indeed.
That matter was discussed at great length in this House, as was also the question of how people were to be informed of what regional assemblies will actually do. The Minister listed the matters that regional government will be able to tamper with. However, he tried to give the impression that there will be significant powers for regional assemblies, when it has been clear all along, and still is, that they will be nothing more than scrutinising talking shops.
We proposed during discussions on the Bill in this House that a draft Bill should be introduced. I am glad to hear from the Statement that that will be done. Perhaps I may ask the Minister when we can expect that and whether it will be laid before the House for discussion.
Is it also still the case, as the Minister repeatedly said during the process of the Bill, that any regional assembly will have "no new powers and no new money" or is there yet to be a power of precept and if so, for what purposes? What will the regional assemblies cost the council tax payer—first, to set up; secondly, to run; and thirdly, to pay those who will be their elected members? Has that yet been worked out? It had not when the Bill was passing through this House.
As the Minister said, there will be two questions, but the real question today is why a referendum for regional government is so important when the Government will not commit themselves to one for the far-reaching European constitutional convention. On that matter, the public can be stirred, but it seems to be in the deepest slumber over regional government.
The proposals are so far from a priority in the minds of any of the electors—the sounding exercise demonstrates that per adventure in the abysmal response that it has generated—that one wonders how the Government have the gall to go ahead with them. Even the business community, represented by the CBI,

547
has expressed the gravest concern about regional assemblies, believing that they will do nothing to enhance enterprise or economic performance. Will the Minster say whether the views of the CBI have been taken into account?
The outcome of the proposals, if they come about, will be the demise of the county councils, the second tier of government for the past 1,000 years—but then, this Government seem to be impervious to 1,000 years of history in any respect. It is certainly our view that the public could be misled over the value of regional government. It is now up to the Government and the careful scrutiny of Parliament to see that they are not. It is also up to the good sense of the public to see through this charade.
4.07 p.m.
Baroness Hamwee: My Lords, we on these Benches welcome the Statement. We welcome it because we support devolution where people want devolution. It is right for the Government to enable that decision to be taken on a local or, perhaps I should say, regional basis. I can assure the noble Baroness that I, too, have had the Statement for only a short time, although I heard news of it from the "Today" programme this morning. My decorator, who arrived when I was listening to it, thought that I was mad to be interested.
We support regional democracy and the move away from the quango state that regional assemblies would enable. We are also glad that our proposals for a second question have been accepted, given that the Prime Minister is not prepared to retain two-tier local government.
The story really begins here. Does the Minister agree that the referendums need to be won? Does he agree that that may be a harder exercise than dealing with the legislation and the soundings? The soundings exercise addressed the level of interest in holding a referendum. Many of us were somewhat sceptical as to whether that would be read by respondents as indicating interest in the holding of a referendum as distinct from interest in there being a regional assembly. I do not suppose that I will be able to tempt the Minister to speculate on that today, but perhaps he could tell the House what is meant in the Statement by "relevant" responses, which are those which have been taken into account in assessing the soundings.
Does the Minister also agree that it is important to be clear about the powers and the functions of the proposed assemblies? The Minister knows that we on these Benches believe that they should be greater. We regret, for instance, that it is not proposed that the regions will be able to hold the Highways Agency, the Environment Agency and the Learning and Skills Councils— to mention just three—to account at regional level. Does he agree that even if supporters of the principle disagree on the detail, it is important to work together and simultaneously for as much devolution as possible? We will have the draft Bill before the referendum. Can the Minister tell the House not only when it will be published but—to go further
548
in than did the noble Baroness—what arrangements there will be for its scrutiny? For example, is it proposed that there will be a Joint Committee of both Houses? It is in my view essential that the scrutiny of the draft Bill provides an opportunity for debate that is as extensive as possible.
We note the response to the soundings exercise in those regions that are not among the three that will have early referendums. The Minister will recall the concern expressed during the passage of the Bill about levels of uncertainty and anxiety in those other regions. Could he take the opportunity today and whenever possible to reassure those other regions that proposals for a regional assembly, while not ruled out, are not just around the corner for them? That means that life could continue as always in those regions.
Coming from London, I cannot help but observe that the White Paper told us that the new regional assemblies are not to have an executive mayor. I hope that during the passage of the Bill the door will not be closed to issues of structure, such as the need to ensure that there are enough members of the new assemblies to ensure representativeness and to carry out the executive and scrutiny functions.
Finally—and in view of the preceding Statement—can the Minister confirm to the House that responsibility for the matter will remain in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and not move to the new Department for Constitutional Affairs?
4.11 p.m.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am grateful for those responses. I apologise if anyone feels that they did not get stuff on time. I am not exactly sure of the situation. I assume that my right honourable friend stood up at 3.30 but the Statement would have been made available to the Opposition Front Bench before then. I do not know why it was made available to the noble Baroness at only quarter to four. I apologise for that.
I take the House seriously and always remind civil servants and colleagues, "Don't forget the House of Lords, by the way". I do so because of what previously happened in relation to the Bill and the soundings. I had my tongue in my cheek when I read one half of the sentence because, as noble Lords know, during the passage of the Bill, noble Lords were not on the list for the soundings distribution.
The 50,000 figure has been challenged so I shall explain it. Total responses logged are 8,465. Of those, 7,132 were from individuals in their private capacities. The balance of 1,513 were from organisations including Members of Parliament, Members of the European Parliament and local authorities. Twenty-eight opinion polls and surveys, and nine petitions were supplied; 37,243 people were consulted via opinion polls or surveys. There were 1,411 signatures to petitions. At least 7,800 people were involved in providing views by way of focus groups, votes at meetings and responses to circulars. The total involved in that way is 46,459; if that is added to the 7,132 direct individual responses the number is 53,591. I call that more than 50,000 people issuing a view. One cannot

549
say that someone who is asked a view is ignored or treated any differently when they have given a view to a survey just because they did not write in. We logged them differently; that is why I can give the breakdown.
This is the first time people have been given a choice about their government structure—I almost said their local government structure but it is not that, nor is it about central government structure—in England. When the Tories abolished Berkshire county council there was no referendum or choice for the people beforehand. To listen to the Opposition, anyone would think that no one had ever abolished a county council. Let us get the facts right. I do not believe that Berkshire county council was ever Labour but there was no referendum for the people of Berkshire. If there is a "yes" vote and the assemblies are set up, the test will be whether they are abolished by another government. The track record is not very good. The Conservatives opposed the establishment of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, and changed their mind. I understand that they opposed democratic city-wide government for London and later changed their mind. We must not forget the valuable contribution of the 150 Tory councillors represented on the regional chambers; I am sure that they will have a word or two to say about the valuable contribution they are making.
Most of the other answers I can provide are basically those I gave during the passage of the Bill. Nevertheless, I shall do my best. I shall not fall into the trap associated with the turnout level. We discussed that in Committee. If we put any figures on a turnout level, that would be an open invitation for those who want to frustrate the objective to call for an abstention in order to manipulate the outcome. We shall wait and see what the people's choice is; that is what matters at the end of the day. It is true that there will be no new powers, no new money and no new tier of government. That is the mantra and that remains exactly the same.
The costs I gave during the passage of the Bill are unchanged. The set-up costs are approximately £30 million. The running costs are about £25 million a year, some of which will be offset by amalgamations and regional office changes. I believe I gave a figure of about £5 million.
On the draft Bill, I cannot go much beyond the Statement save to say that our intention is to produce a draft Bill before the referendums. We cannot currently provide a timetable; to be honest, it is too far ahead to calculate parliamentary counsel resources. I—and, I believe, everyone else—would be happier if a draft Bill were published a decent time beforehand. The question is, not knowing the date of the referendum, other than autumn next year, could there be parliamentary scrutiny beforehand? That could mean the summer. I could not possibly prejudge that. For the avoidance of any doubt, the production of a draft Bill will not delay the referendums; I make that abundantly clear. Having a draft Bill will not act like a veto or a trigger for the referendum. We have already said—and I mean this—that through the letterboxes of each of the houses and dwellings in the regions will come information about what the regional assemblies
550
are about and what their powers and functions will be; there will be full information. Needless to say, when the draft Bill appears, it will be subject to full parliamentary scrutiny. However, I cannot at present give details about the timetable; I am sorry about that.
On the EU, it is no good asking me questions. I cannot answer those questions and, basically, I will not.
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords, I have no authority to answer questions for the Government on the European Union; other Ministers are employed, paid and briefed to do so. I am not one of them.
We have no plan to abolish the county councils. It may be the case—I do not know—that the Boundary Committee may put forward options for single-tier unitary county councils; I do not know. It is for that committee to look at the six or seven county councils on the list that I mentioned. There is no sub-plot to abolish county councils.
We have considered all of the "relevant responses". I believe that that phrase was included because the lawyers considered that some of the responses that were received were not relevant. That includes many from business, individuals and organisations; they had a variety of views all of which have been considered.
I have dealt with the costing issue and the level of responses. On the soundings exercise, people might chaff about it but the fact is that one can run a well-respected opinion poll in this country with, I believe, about 1,700 people, so long as they are classified correctly and virtually mirror exactly the population of this country. That is tried and tested and scientific. Many more people were involved and it was split on a regional basis. The regions are not all the same size. They are not the same; they do not look the same, they do not act the same and they do not sound the same. I say: thank goodness for that. My question for the Opposition is: if the assemblies are set up, will they abolish them?
4.19 p.m.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, does the Minister recall that two or three years ago the Prime Minister was reported as saying that we needed local government and elected regional assembles like a hole in the head? Does he know what caused the Prime Minister to change his mind? What sort of madness is it when a government grant people referenda on regional government for which there is no great groundswell of support but refuse a referendum on proposals from Europe that affect our very independence as a nation? Has the world gone completely mad? Does not our present local government set up—especially our county councils—help maintain a balance between urban and ruralinterests? Is it not disgraceful that the Government are prepared to risk all that being set at nought in the

551
North West, for example, where any assembly would be bound to be dominated by urban interests based on the conurbations of Merseyside and Manchester?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, on the latter point, as we made clear during the passage of the Bill, all polices, whether from regional assemblies, central or local government, must be rural-proof. The rural element of those policies should be an integral part of them, not tacked on at the end.
The original White Paper sets out that, should there be a "yes" vote and a Bill establishes a regional assembly, the electoral system for that assembly would not be based on a quota system for the size of constituencies, such as that in another place. The Boundary Committee has the powers to change, alter and keep discreet figures for electoral numbers for rural areas to take special account of the dispersal of the population. That would not happen in elections for membership of another place. The idea is an integral part of the plan and I will not accept that there is an argument between urban and rural interests.
Ultimately, the people will decide. If they choose to have an elected regional assembly, that is their choice—not that of this House, the Government or another place. We have set up the procedure to give people the choice. That is it. There is now a set of rules—a statutory framework—for governing referendums that was not available for the earlier referendums, which will lead to a fair result. As for the first question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, about the quote from the Prime Minister, the noble Lord gave no chapter, quote or reference, so I will not answer it.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, which I welcome. Several right reverend Prelates on these Benches have supported the policy over the past few years. I signed the letter from the bishops and Church leaders of the North West, largely because I wanted an end to the uncertainty. The North West is a region surrounded—north and south—by devolved government. The citizens of the North West have the right to a similar government.
I chair the North West Rural Affairs Forum—the Defra body—and I share the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, about rural and urban interests. Therefore, will the Minister assure those of us who will vote in the referendum about what the body will actually do and about the interests of the rural areas and shire counties, which cover a vast area over and against the heavily populated conurbations of Greater Manchester and Merseyside. Will he assure us that the Statement will be well publicised so that people are well aware of what will happen post-referendum?
552
I hope that the criteria by which the Boundary Committee deal with this difficult and sensitive business of designating regions will be clearly published for all of us to understand.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, on the last point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, which I hope was covered in the Statement, the criteria given to the Boundary Committee have been published today. Details of the direction that has been given to the committee should be available in the Library. There is no secret about them—nothing has been done behind closed doors.
On what will happen post-referendum, as much information as possible will be made available before the referendum, during the campaign and over the coming months. It is difficult because, in areas in which there is two-tier local government, a decision will have to be made about the new structure. Obviously, the Boundary Committee will take a while—perhaps six or nine months or even a year—to complete the reviews in each of the three regions for the local government changes that would be on offer for the present two-tier areas, where only people in those areas will have the second vote.
Full information about what matters will be dealt with by the regional assemblies and how they will operate will be available, based, one hopes, on the draft Bill. The public will receive information through letter boxes.
I can only repeat my earlier comments about the urban/rural split. I hope that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn does not go down the same road. The idea that only people who live in rural areas care about those areas is a scandalous lie. It is a calumny on all the other people. We all care. A quarter of the population of this country lives in rural areas, although many of those people work in urban areas. However, rural areas are not just a playground. The chocolate box image imagined by people who know nothing about the countryside is false. We are talking about vibrant, sustainable communities.
Policies must be rural-proof. The Countryside Agency's chair and chief executive, as well as Ministers should be held to account. Along with the Deputy Prime Minister, I have been on the receiving end of ensuring that all our policies are rural proof. We assured ourselves that they were not only an add-on or afterthought to the overall policies of the department.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, is the Minister aware of the Constitution Select Committee's report on devolution? Has he read it? Has he seen the annexed report that shows widespread disillusionment about the consequences of devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? Is he aware that, in Scotland, the cost of the Parliament has increased from £40 million to £400 million, that half the electorate failed to turn out for the election, and that the Northern Ireland Assembly is not sitting? Only this week, there has been huge resentment in Wales and Scotland about the proposed changes in the offices of Secretary of State for those countries.

553
Would it not be more sensible for the Government to get the constitutional changes that they have made right before embarking on another, like the Frank Spencer figure in "Some Mothers Do 'Ave 'Em"? Would it not be better to make what they have done work before setting out on a new agenda?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth of Drumlean, who sat in a previous Cabinet, I must say that nothing he said was relevant to the Statement.
Lord Bridges: My Lords, the planning process will he severely affected by these proposals. The reference to the creation of new unitary authorities is a clear indication of that. I have therefore been trying to find out what has happened to the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill that featured in the gracious Speech at the beginning of this Session and has been stuck in another place for some months. We were promised that it would be here in June. It is not here. I learn from an article in the Financial Times a week ago that the Government have decided to withdraw that Bill and delay legislation until the next Session. Is that true? Some of us have been working hard to prepare for its arrival and the absence of information is worrying.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I say with the greatest respect that there is no absence of information about the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill. Everything is known. There was a debate in another place on Tuesday last week in which the orders for what we propose for the Bill, that were announced the previous week, were approved. We have not withdrawn it at all, but referred it back to the Standing Committee in the House of Commons. We are taking the opportunity to include the long-awaited removal of Crown immunity in planning matters, add parts of the Bill that could not be included in the original Bill in respect of compulsory purchase to make the process easier and make minor changes to the setting up of urban development corporations relating to community plan growth areas.
Those matters were all agreed last week and are on the record. When the House of Commons has considered it, they will use their new procedure to carry over legislation from one Session to another. Therefore, the Bill—not a new Bill—should arrive in this House just before Christmas or in the first week of January. With all the additions that we want to make, we cannot proceed with the Bill as drafted because it does not fit the procedures of this House.
The Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill will probably get Royal Assent four months later than originally planned. It would not have received Royal Assent until November anyway. In order to achieve decent consideration in this House, the Bill will probably now receive Royal Assent at the end of March next year. It will be a much better Bill than the one we kicked off with.
554
The Government think that it is wise to take the opportunity to add those extra elements. It was not thought appropriate to include all those major additions—although there are no changes of policy—on Report.
Lord Morgan: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that there are at least two major arguments for the measure? I hope it is in order not merely to address the House twice in rapid succession, but also to startle the Whips twice in rapid succession by supporting the Government. In my case, that is unusual.
First, devolution has come about in Scotland and Wales—I do not agree with the comments made aboutthat—but nothing has been done about England. England has been described as a "black hole" in the constitutional arrangements. The proposals are a natural extension. In the presence of my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer, I express the hope that regionalism together with devolution is eventually placed in his department as a way of integrating the constitutional arrangements and making sense of them.
Noble Lords: Question!
Lord Morgan: Secondly, I believe that the measure will promote greater equality. It brings together civic accountability of liberal democracy and the drive for equality in social democracy. Disparity in wealth, regional strength and economic progress in the different parts of England has been manifest. That is the result of over-centralisation and the lack of administrative and political clout in those areas.
We heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, about a thousand years of history. I have spent 45 years of my life teaching history, as has the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his support. In answering him, I can answer a question I neglected to answer from the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee. It is intended that this remains a policy issue for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. There is no intention to transfer this policy issue to the Department of Constitutional Affairs.
My noble friend is right that the present situation has not worked, otherwise we would not have the present regional disparities in this country. That is not to say that we want all regions the same, but some lag considerably behind others in economic performance, even though the quality of life and scenery is much better in many of the northern regions.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister familiar with the view of Professor Vernon Bogdanor that legislative devolution has not been matched by any equivalent degree of financial devolution and that that is one of the main difficulties? Will lie give an undertaking that that mistake will not be repeated in regional government? Is he aware that he cannot give that

555
undertaking without paying attention to the relations between Europe and the regions as well as Whitehall and the regions?
Is the Minister further aware that proposals for regional government in England go back to the negotiations for Anglo/Scottish union in 1707? Will he confirm that it is not a coincidence that discussions of regional government in England again follow major changes in the Anglo/Scottish relationship?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the latter point probably has a lot of substance and I look back to the debates in another place on the referendums relating to the devolution Bills introduced in the mid-1970s when I first became a Member there. Devolution to Scotland has raised the issue as regards the North East and the North West because of the economic activity and so forth.
The noble Earl's point about financial devolution is important and serious. However, there is no new money. The tax raising powers are a minor precept on local government and probably the noble Earl and Professor Bogdanor would not say that we are proposing financial devolution. I do not believe that that is figured in the calculations, but I understand the importance of his comments. Scotland has devolution to a minor degree, but, to the best of my knowledge, it has not taken up the opportunity to use it.
Earl Peel: My Lords, the Minister earlier said that he did not want to fall into the trap of pre-empting what he would regard as being an acceptable turnout in percentage terms before a referendum was to be decided. That seems a most extraordinary way of going about determining an issue of such constitutional importance. Will the noble Lord give an indication of how the Government will decide whether a particular percentage is to be regarded as sufficiently high for them to accept the results of a referendum? Will this vary from one part of the country to another? Will it be 12 per cent in one area, 20 per cent in another and 25 per cent in another?
Furthermore, the Minister talked about greater democracy and local accountability, but can he confirm that the average number of voters per regional assembly member will be approximately 250,000—four times more than a Member of Parliament? Is that really local accountability and local democracy?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, yes, I can confirm the figures that the noble Earl has given. We are not proposing large assemblies, as we made clear during the passage of the Bill. They will vary between about 25 to 35 in terms of membership. The Greater London Assembly is about that size, but I am not overly familiar with it. Therefore, the electoral system will be a form of PR and the additional-member system, which makes the constituencies large. However, it is dependent on the function. That is the issue. We are not talking about the equivalents of local councillors or Members of Parliament. The functions will be
556
different so they will be large, but that does not diminish their function or importance in any way, shape or form.
I cannot help the noble Earl on the turnout. It is obvious I cannot go down that road and give a view about what might be an acceptable turnout based on what might be an acceptable level of victory. We have made it clear that one vote is enough as a majority, but we had these discussions during the passage of the Bill. It would be wrong to give such a figure if only for the fact that it would be misused by those who want to oppose the measure. They would campaign for abstentions, which is a pretty dishonest thing to do in a democracy. Yes, campaign for your views—"I am for this", or, "I am against that"—but to campaign for an abstention in order to manipulate the outcome is not democratic.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords—
Lord Campbell-Savours: My Lords—
Noble Lords: Stoddart!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, thank you very much. It is time I had a little consideration in this House. I want to ask the Minister two questions. First, he said that there will be no new money or powers. Will the electorates of the three regions be informed that there will be no new money or powers; that they will be subject to precepts; and that they will not therefore be in the same favourable position as Scotland and Wales? Will he also tell them—and I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, will listen to this—that there is no possibility of "dequangoisation" because there will be no new powers?
Secondly, will he assure me that public money will not be used between now and when the referendums take place on one side of the argument? Will there be grants to both sides of the arguments if and when the referendums take place?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, in short, the answer to all four questions is yes.
Lord Shutt of Greetland: My Lords, I should like a little clarity timing. The powers, duties, responsibilities and expectations of these devolved bodies need to be thoroughly known. Those who are campaigning for devolved government want to know exactly what they are able to campaign about. There is no doubt in my mind that those who do not want the devolved assemblies will know what to campaign about. With the vested interests of the counties and the districts, the fears which exist and the greater fears which might be spread, they will know what to say. Therefore, it is most important that the powers, duties, responsibilities and expectations are clearly laid out.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I understand what the noble Lord, Lord Shutt, is saying about what the various sides will know. If you are against the proposal, you know now. It does not matter what

557
the Boundary Committee comes up with on options. If you want to keep the status quo—two-tier local government and so forth—you vote no and campaign on that. It is easier to do that but we will not have the options for local government in the two-tier areas for perhaps 12 months. Three regions have to vote, which makes it more difficult.
On the other hand, there will be a campaign period for the referendum. I assure the noble Lord that Nick Raynsford, the Minister responsible for local government, will be taking every opportunity to deploy the arguments about what is available in respect of regional assemblies. We will ensure that every household has the required information. That will not be until after we know what the options are. If it is done too early and too far away from the referendum, it will be lost in the ether. On the other hand, I accept the point that if you are against the whole exercise, you can start your campaign wagon rolling tomorrow. However, that is a very negative campaign wagon because those who take that view really will not know what they are opposing, at least until the Boundary Committee gives its options.
Those people who go on television to say "vote no" can be asked the question, "What are you against? You do not even know what is going to happen yet". It is a little like the argument on the EU Treaty, which I said I would not answer. We will not get the EU Treaty until after the inter-governmental conference, which is another reason why I am not answering any questions on it.

Business
4.41 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, I have two brief pieces of information. First, the start of the Grand Committee on the Local Government Bill has been delayed for the entirely sensible reason that noble Lords who wish to participate in the proceedings on the Bill wanted to take part in the exchanges that we have just been having. That Grand Committee will now resume at 4.50 p.m.
Secondly, perhaps I may say to the House what I normally say on these occasions. We are about to start a Second Reading debate on a very important Bill. Many noble Lords have put down their names to speak in the debate. The arithmetic is as follows: with around 30 speakers and starting now, if the contributions were limited to around eight minutes, then we should finish at about 9.45 p.m. I am talking about the Back-Bench contributions now. I saw some alarm on the Front Bench when I said that.
At the other end of the scale, if the contributions were around 12 minutes, we should finish at 11.30 p.m. It is not a time-limited debate. I am therefore not instructing anyone about anything. I am simply reminding your Lordships of the arithmetic.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, in giving what was advice to speed up the
558
debate, has he taken into account that there are two volumes in relation to the Criminal Justice Bill? One volume contains 306 clauses and occupies 175 pages. Volume 2 contains 23 schedules and occupies 200 pages. Is this not more a case for giving us two days for the Second Reading rather than trying to hide the time we are entitled to use?
Lord Grocott: My Lords, very briefly, because I do not want to prolong this exchange, I simply repeat that this is no injunction. I am not able to give an injunction. I am suggesting to the House that I have no doubt whatever that all the detailed issues relating to the Criminal Justice Bill will be considered in detail in Committee, on Report and at Third Reading. As we all know, the Second Reading is a debate about the general thrust and principles underlying the debate. I am not telling anyone how long they should speak for; I am simply pointing out the consequences of the various time lengths for each speech.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords, with the greatest respect to the Minister, it is impossible to cover all the generalities of this Second Reading, even if individual speakers speak only to three parts of the Bill, as for instance I intend to do. Even so, I do not believe that justice can be done to this monstrous Bill, or momentous Bill, in a time-limited debate. I know the noble Lord is not imposing a guillotine but if he says to the House, "If you take 15 minutes per Back Bencher, you can expect to sit here until two o'clock in the morning", it is not a guillotine but it comes jolly near to it.
Lord Renton: My Lords, this might have been easier if we had been about to start the Second Reading of the Bill at say 3.10 p.m. It is now a quarter to five, so we have lost an hour and 35 minutes.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, if I respond any further to these exchanges we shall lose even more time. I suggest I let the Second Reading proceed.

Criminal Justice Bill
4.44 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Gracious Speech said that at the heart of this Session's legislative programme is a commitment to reform and rebalance the criminal justice system, to deliver justice for all and to safeguard the interests of victims, witnesses and communities. This Bill is a major contribution to meeting those commitments.
We can be in no doubt that reform is needed. Too many people escape justice. Nearly a quarter of defendants commit at least one offence while on bail. Twelve per cent of those bailed fail to appear at court. Every year over 60,000 trials do not go ahead on the day planned. A further 70,000 trials crack on the day that they are due to be heard. So over half of all

559
witnesses who attend court do not give evidence. Every time a case collapses or the verdict is perceived as unjust, a victim's suffering is made worse.
Those who have met the people who work in the system or are victims of crime will know all too well that the system is in desperate need of reform and that the reform will need to be far more than skin deep if we are to deliver what communities want, expect and deserve from the system.
The Bill sets out to deliver reform across the whole system. Its 14 parts cover police and prosecution procedures, criminal proceedings and evidence, sentencing, and various other miscellaneous provisions. It is brought forward by three criminal justice Ministers—my right honourable friend the Home Secretary, myself and my noble and learned friend the Attorney-General—acting in unison.
I shall be brief in introduction. Many noble Lords have indicated that they wish to speak in this debate. I know that they will bring their considerable expertise in these areas to bear on this Bill.
While the Bill was in another place, we were very open to constructive suggestions for the Bill's improvement. All of us, including my noble friend, the newly-appointed Minister of State for the criminal justice system and law reform, will listen very carefully to all that is said during this debate and in the months to come.
Part 1 makes amendments to the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, following a joint Cabinet Office/Home Office review in 2002. Clauses 1 to 6 aim to simplify procedures, reduce burdens, save resources and speed up justice, without compromising basic rights. Clauses 7 and 8, which are about fingerprinting and the taking of DNA on arrest, will help the police in the detection of serious crimes. Clause 9 is aimed at getting up-to-date guidance out to operational police officers at the earliest possible point, but we recognise that this should not be at the expense of proper scrutiny.
We agreed in another place that we should seek to amend this clause so that all new codes and any significant revisions should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
Clause 11 introduces a power of arrest for class C drugs, for very limited use, in respect of cannabis when it has been reclassified from class B to class C.
Clause 12 allows for under-18s in limited circumstances to be drug-tested on arrest. It will be piloted before being fully implemented. It is one of a number of clauses about drug testing and treatment, including Clause 19—restriction for bail for drug users—and Clause 154, Clause 251 and Clause 264, which form part of a package of measures designed to address drug misuse and offending in our comprehensive anti-drugs strategy.
Part 2 of the Bill contains proposals to reduce offending on bail. In particular, Clause 15 creates a presumption against bail where a defendant fails to turn up to court without reasonable cause.
560
Parts 3, 4, 5 and 6 will each contribute in different ways to the better management of the criminal justice system: first, by allowing the CPS to attach conditions to cautions; secondly, by transferring the responsibility for charging in non-routine cases from the police to the CPS; thirdly, by providing for a new regime for disclosure in criminal cases; and fourthly, by changing the procedure to be followed in magistrates' courts for determining whether cases triable either way should be tried summarily or on indictment.
Part 7 makes a number of reforms to the process of jury trial. The Government are not mounting a wholesale attack on trial by jury. Far from it. The proposals in the Bill are limited. Clause 41 would allow for judge-alone trial where the defendant requests this. Clause 42 would allow it in long or complex cases involving serious fraud, commercial or financial issues. That is not because we doubt the competence of the jury, but because the trial places too great a burden on the jury and because the indictments have to be severed to make jury trial manageable. Clause 43 would allow for judge-alone trial where there is a real and present danger that jury tampering would take place, and Clause 45 would allow it where a jury has to be discharged because tampering has already taken place. Those measures will help to protect juries from intimidation and interference.
Jury trial will continue to be the norm for the vast majority of serious cases. The Bill respects and safeguards that central principle of our system.
We also propose to table amendments that will give effect to one of the proposals in the Law Commission's report on multiple offending, in which trials in cases of repeat similar offending would be managed in a new way. First, there would be a conventional jury trial on specimen counts. In the event of a conviction, a second stage trial on counts linked to those specimen counts would take place before a judge alone. In that way, the court would be able properly to sentence a defendant for the true extent of his offending.
Part 8 extends current provisions to enable any witness to give evidence using live links in the interests of efficient or effective administration of justice. Part 9 introduces an interlocutory prosecution right of appeal against judicial rulings in the Crown Court that have the effect of stopping the trial early, before the jury has been asked to consider the evidence. We propose to extend the right of appeal also to non-terminating evidential rulings.
Part 10 proposes an exception to the double jeopardy rule for very serious offences. That change has been backed by the Law Commission, the Home Affairs Select Committee and Sir Robin Auld's review of the criminal courts. The proposals will enable the Court of Appeal to quash an acquittal, enabling a retrial to take place where there is compelling new evidence against the acquitted person and the court is satisfied that it is in the interests of justice for there to be a retrial. Significant safeguards are included.
The next part of the Bill reforms the rules of evidence. The widest range of evidence should be available to juries that will enable them to reach a just

561
verdict. The current rules are confusing and difficult to apply. They can encourage defendants and lawyers to view the criminal justice system as a game, and can dissuade witnesses from testifying for fear of having their character attacked in court. The reforms in Part 11, Chapter 1, will enable judges to let juries hear about a defendant's previous convictions and other misconduct where that is relevant to the case and provided that there is not an adverse effect on the fairness of the proceedings.
Our proposals go significantly further than the Law Commission's recommendations, giving a clear steer that relevant evidence should be admitted as far as possible. Sir Robin Auld called for a move away from technical rules of admissibility in favour of trusting magistrates and juries to give relevant evidence the weight that it deserves. We agree.
Chapter 2 of Part 11 will provide a comprehensive scheme to replace the current complex and inconsistent rules relating to hearsay evidence. Evidence will be automatically admissible in some cases; judges will have the power to admit other relevant evidence, subject to safeguards; and the reforms will assist witnesses in giving evidence.
Part 12 will transform the sentencing framework in England and Wales. In the White Paper, Justice For All, we recognised that the current sentencing framework is not sufficiently flexible. Sentences properly tailored to the offender and the offence would reduce the chances of further offending. Many of the elements of prison sentences, community sentences and the sentencing process have developed piecemeal since the Criminal Justice Act 1991. That has created a lack of clarity in the system as a whole.
Part 12 overhauls sentencing from the courtroom through to prison and probation. It is largely based on the recommendations of Mr John Halliday, in his review of the sentencing framework, on which there was widespread consultation. For the first time, the purposes of sentencing will be explicit in statute as: punishment; public protection; crime reduction; reform and rehabilitation; and reparation. Those purposes are complementary. It will be up sentencers to determine what weight to accord to each in a particular case.
Much has been said recently about the independence of the judiciary and the effect of some of our policies on it. Let me make quite clear—as I have recently on several occasions—that the independence of the judiciary is vital. It is essential for the rule of law that that is so. The Government fully recognise and support the position of the judiciary on the decisions that they make on individual cases.
We also believe that Parliament has an important role in setting the framework. Chapter 1 of Part 12 sets out key principles. Alongside the existing principle that the severity of sentence should reflect the seriousness of the current offence will be the principle that previous convictions, where recent and relevant, should be treated as an aggravating factor when determining the severity of a sentence.
562
Clause 146 extends the sentencing power of magistrates' courts to 12 months in respect of one offence and 15 months in respect of two or more offences for which the terms are to be served consecutively. That change will allow magistrates to impose the short custodial sentences and intermediate sanctions that the Bill will introduce, and will encourage them to retain more either-way cases for trial, thus freeing up Crown Court time.
Clauses 160 to 166 set up a sentencing guidelines council to promote sentencing consistency. The council will produce a robust and comprehensive set of guidelines for all courts, enabling them to approach a case from a common starting point. A single set of guidelines will be a clear aid to consistent sentencing and will improve public confidence.
Under Chapters 2, 3 and 4, the current range of community sentences will be replaced by a single sentence, within which sentencers will have flexibility to put together a tough package specifically tailored to the needs of the case and the offender. Prison sentences of less than 12 months will be replaced by custody plus—a short period in prison followed by a longer period under supervision in the community. There will be provision for some offenders to serve custody plus intermittently, thus allowing them to maintain ties with the community; and for a suspended sentence with requirements, as with a community sentence, under which progress will be reviewed by the sentencing court and the original custodial sentence enforced in the event of breach.
Clause 235 simplifies the structure for release of prisoners serving more than 12 months, with automatic release at the half-way point and licence conditions biting right until the end of the sentence.
Chapter 5 introduces new arrangements for dangerous offenders. An offender who has committed a sexual or violent trigger offence for which the maximum sentence is less than 10 years, and who is assessed by the court as dangerous, will be given an extended sentence. Release from that sentence will be on recommendation of the Parole Board, and extra periods of supervision following release must be attached. Offenders who have committed a trigger offence for which the maximum sentence is 10 years or more, and whom the court has assessed as dangerous, will be released only if they are considered by the Parole Board to be manageable in the community. That sentence will therefore provide for the indeterminate detention of those most dangerous sexual and violent offenders who continue to pose a risk to society.
In response to the judgement of the European Court of Human Rights in the Stafford case, and the judgement of the House of Lords in Anderson, Chapter 7 establishes a new scheme for tariff setting in murder cases. Under that system, the court, rather than the Home Secretary, will determine the minimum term to be served in prison by a person convicted of murder. The length of that minimum term is to be determined by reference to a new statutory framework set out in

563
Schedule 17. Once the minimum term has expired, the Parole Board will consider the person's suitability for release, and, if appropriate, direct his release.
Chapter 8 alters penalties. Clause 270 increases the maximum penalties for the three offences of causing death by dangerous driving, causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs and aggravated vehicle taking where, as a result of driving the vehicle, an accident occurs and death results.
Clauses 271 to 276 introduce a mandatory minimum sentence for firearms offences. This is a clear demonstration of the Government's commitment both to deter criminals from using firearms and to ensure that they receive an appropriately tough custodial sentence on conviction. The Government will also be tabling an amendment to increase the maximum penalty for trafficking in endangered species from two to five years.
Part 13 contains further important reforms to the system. Notably, Clause 284 will amend Schedule 8 to the Terrorism Act 2000 to give the court the power to extend the period of detention of a person suspected of terrorist activities from seven days up to a total of 14 days.
To supplement this provision, we propose also to table amendments to bring the penalty for fraudulently obtaining a driving licence in line with that for fraudulently obtaining a passport, and to make both offences arrestable. We know that organised criminals and terrorists rely on documents such as passports and driving licences in order to travel and access financial services. Obtaining these documents is a gateway to other offences.
Clause 291 and Schedule 27 provide that anyone summoned to do jury service will be required to do it unless they can show good reason to have their summons deferred or excused.
In two provisions designed to improve our response to young offenders, Clauses 292 and 293 introduce a provision to attach an individual support order to an anti-social behaviour order made against a young person aged between 10 and 17 years and Clause 294 and Schedule 28 allow a parenting order to be attached to a referral order.
Clauses 295 to 297 strengthen the current statutory arrangements for local police and probation services to monitor and manage the risks posed by sexual and violent offenders in the community by requiring other bodies to be involved in the arrangements. An amendment will be brought forward to add local education departments to these bodies. Clause 298 and Schedule 29 take forward some of the recommendations of a recent independent review of the operations of the Criminal Records Bureau to support a programme of improvements in performance in the bureau.
This is a comprehensive measure. On many areas there is general agreement in principle and, as we have said, we shall be ready to take on board further suggestions for improvements to the detail. As further evidence of this, we propose to bring forward
564
amendments to improve the operation of criminal appeals which have been recommended to us by the Lord Chief Justice and his colleagues. We are also considering the amendments which were tabled in another place to strengthen, if possible, the protection of victims of crime from civil claims by offenders.
This is an important measure which will provide significant improvements to justice and the operation of the system. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
5.3 p.m.
Baroness Anelay of St Johns: My Lords, I thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for outlining the objectives and provisions of this major Bill. The only personal interest I should register at this point is the same as that of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in that I am married to a barrister who sits part time as a recorder. At this point perhaps I may also add my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on her promotion to Minister of State at the Home Office.
As I have in the past, I can state categorically once again that of course we want to see a far more effective fight against violent crime than the Government have managed so far. It is right to be tough on crime, but we must take care to avoid rough justice. We support most of the measures in the Bill. but we and noble Lords around the House have said repeatedly that we also need to be very cautious before throwing out ancient liberties.
The principles of the right to trial by jury for serious offences, of the presumption of innocence, and the idea that trials should not be skewed against the defendant are long established. They are rooted in justice and common sense. We will resist any erosion of liberty that is not backed by overwhelming arguments in its favour.
It is vital to ensure that the public has confidence in the criminal justice system. That means that the victims of crime should be confident that Parliament has made the appropriate penalties available for the judiciary to impose. But more than that, it should mean that we do everything in our power to ensure that people do not become victims in the first place. That includes putting more police on the streets out there preventing crime, and solving it.
Victim Support made that point in a letter to me dated 16th April, pointing out that successive governments since as long ago as 1974 have improved the way that our criminal justice system treats people affected by crime, but only 3 per cent of victims have their cases resolved by the criminal justice system and only 1 per cent receive compensation for violent crime. I agree with Victim Support that there is still much to be done both inside and outside the criminal justice system to provide help to overcome the effects of crime.
The House has a great deal of work ahead of it to scrutinise and improve the Bill. In another place, the Government inserted a large number of significant

565
new clauses and schedules at Report stage, when they could be given little scrutiny and, according to the procedure there, could not be amended. Indeed, on two occasions on Report in another place, government Ministers ran out of time before they could even finish introducing their own groups of amendments. That is clearly unacceptable.
The guillotine was wielded with vigour. My own colleagues were so concerned about the cavalier attitude of the Government to debate on Report that they voted against the timetabling Motion on 19th May, with the support of the Liberal Democrats. As the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has explained today, we know that the Government intend to introduce even more new measures in this House. No doubt some of those will be very welcome, but all will need careful scrutiny.
On 20th May in another place (at col. 968 of the Official Report) the Home Secretary mentioned one measure that he would introduce in this House. He sought to bring forward amendments to prevent burglars from obtaining compensation from their victims where he or she had defended themselves proportionately. That would be welcome because of course it is the substance of an amendment introduced in another place by my honourable friend Dominic Grieve. So we shall certainly need time to scrutinise properly the detail of the Bill.
However, I have to say to noble Lords that so far I have been offered only one day in Committee before the Summer Recess. I hope that soon I shall hear more from the Government managers on that, especially in the light of the statement made at Third Reading in another place by the Home Secretary (at col. 968 of the Official Report) that he expected Royal Assent in the early autumn. I hope that his definition of "early autumn" is late November or December; who can say?
Turning to the provisions of the Bill, I shall simply outline some of the main areas of agreement and objection. We welcome the plans to increase the sentencing powers of magistrates to 12 months, but we object to the freedom given to the Home Secretary to increase that period to 18 months by way of an affirmative statutory instrument. We believe that it should be done by primary legislation, and I am encouraged to note that, in its 21st report, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform agrees with me. I hope that the Government will note carefully its recommendation.
We welcome several measures introduced on Report in another place that improve the sentences available to the judiciary. We welcome, too, the proposals mentioned today by the Lord Chancellor to increase the maximum sentences on serious driving cases to 14 years. That response reflects appropriately public concern about these matters.
We welcome the Government's willingness to look at new methods of avoiding custodial sentences where appropriate. We shall want to look carefully and constructively at their interesting proposals for custody plus and custody minus. But of course neither will work satisfactorily unless the Treasury can be persuaded to provide the funds.
566
We have considered very carefully the Government's proposals for a sentencing guidelines council and their proposals for sentencing for murder. Over the past few months, my right honourable friend Oliver Letwin and I have listened carefully to the views of our colleagues in another place and to those of our colleagues on these Benches, as well as from around the House. We think that it is a mistake for the Government to include juveniles in the 15-year category. We hope that the Government will think again. The Home Secretary indicated in another place that he might be minded to listen to further arguments on that.
We support the concept of a sentencing guidelines council, but we do think that it is extraordinary to create the council in this Bill, and then, in the very same legislation, to introduce a set of sentencing provisions which have not gone through that process. We believe that members of the council should be drawn only from the judiciary and that their recommendations should be scrutinised by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. We would suggest that, at least in the case of recommendations on murder, those sentencing proposals should then be subject to debate in Parliament using the negative resolution procedure. We believe that that offers the right balance of democratic accountability and respect for the judiciary.
I anticipate that our debates on the sentencing proposals will take some considerable time, given the expertise and strength of feeling in the House. I undertake to listen very carefully to all views from around the House and, as the noble and learned Lord said in his opening remarks, I hope that the Government do the same.
But the portents thus far have not been encouraging. I have been dismayed by the intemperate language used by the Home Secretary in describing some of the judiciary. The easy case is always to bash the judges if one disagrees with the sentence given in a particular instance. That is not a mature response for a politician.
Our job is to get the law right in the first place as it passes through our hands here. We should not whinge if the Court of Appeal Criminal Division interprets and applies the law in a way that displeases us. It is the job of the Court of Appeal to interpret the law and apply it to the facts of the particular case before it. It is our job to amend the law if cases show that we have not achieved our objective. The Bill gives us that opportunity. We should seize it.
So far I have been as welcoming as I can be of the Government's proposals, but there remain three issues about which we have the gravest concern. First, as regards the issue of retrial, we agree that there should be one opportunity for a retrial where there is compelling new evidence that was not available in the first instance. But it is vital that the possibility of a retrial should not be used as an excuse for a less than thorough initial investigation and presentation of the case. We believe most strongly that a retrial should be restricted to offences of murder and rape, and not extended to the huge list in Schedule 4. We shall bring forward our detailed arguments on that in Committee.

567
Secondly, as regards evidence of bad character, we accept that there are good arguments for putting into statute the current practice for admitting evidence of bad character. We agree with the view of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that there is a need for clarification. At the moment, we believe that the Government have quite simply, as the Bill is currently drafted, got the balance wrong between its probative and prejudicial effect. We will need to ask the Government to put that right because, if we fail, there will be a serious risk of people being convicted on the basis of their past criminal record and not on the basis of the facts of the alleged offence before the court.
Finally, I turn to the issue of trial by jury—or, as in the case of the Bill, trial without jury. We believe that it is wrong of the Government to chip away at our right to trial by jury in Crown Court cases. Juries are an important part of a healthy democracy. They represent public participation in the criminal justice system. We know that a vast majority of the public have confidence in jury trial and back a role for the jury in the justice system wherever possible. The Government have tried twice before to restrict jury trial in measures brought before the House. Each time the House has asked them to think again. Now the Government have returned with the same objective dressed in new arguments—but the new arguments are as flawed as the old.
The right for a defendant to select trial by judge alone looked minimally objectionable at first. That is until, in another place, the Government's case was torn apart by their own honourable friend Vera Baird. She revealed the hidden dangers it posed to the interests of both the defendant and the public.
The Government state that long and complex cases are too burdensome for juries to hear. We say that the solution is to make sure that the prosecution presents a case simply and effectively and concentrates on the essentials. That is the discipline that jury trial should impose upon the prosecution.
I turn to the issue of intimidation. Where there is an allegation of jury intimidation, surely we should try harder to protect the members of the public who do their job as jurors so conscientiously. I take the opportunity here to pay tribute to all of them. If we start down the route of abandoning jury trial where we fear intimidation, we are on the slippery slope to no jury trial at all. My noble friend Lord Hunt of Wirral will lead us on the issue of jury trial. He will work to build a coalition around the House to remove Part 7 from the Bill in its entirety.
There is so much of value in the Bill that it must not be tarnished by this attempt to make inroads into jury trial. We ask the Government to listen to the argument, and to think again.
5.15 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I, too, thank the Lord Chancellor for his introduction of this lengthy Bill. I am not quite sure what to call him now, whether it is the Nabob of Wales or the Sultan of
568
Scotland. Over the week-end I have been in both countries, where his appointment has not been greeted with great joy. However, I am rather flattered that the Government have come round to the view that the responsibilities for criminal justice and for Wales combine very well together.
I also welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to her new responsibilities. We have all enjoyed her contributions to the House. We know that she will perhaps be something of a buffer against other influences in the criminal justice field.
The Criminal Justice Bill contains some sensible reforming measures which have been well thought through, are practical and will get our support. Other proposals are very much more controversial and will be the subject of debate. We on these Benches will attempt to amend or delete them. Some recent high profile additions to the Bill by the current Home Secretary are simply daft and we hope that all sensible Members will ensure that they are removed.
Perhaps I may make two general observations. The criminal justice system does not belong to lawyers and judges; nor to the police; nor to politicians. It belongs to and springs from the people. There are no watertight compartments of victims and criminals. So often our debates seem to suggest that there is a white and black situation when in fact very often a criminal today is a victim tomorrow. In violent crime the chief prosecution witness very frequently has a long list of convictions himself. It therefore follows that witnesses, who also tend to be regarded as being in a watertight compartment, may be totally detached, unbiased and worthy of belief, or they may be completely involved in what has happened.
The public's ownership of the criminal justice system has important consequences. It is essential that the people have trust that the system is fair and effective, both in investigation by the police and in the trial process itself. If there is a general belief that police investigations are not scrupulously fair, rigorous and professional, then victims will not complain, witnesses will not come forward and juries and magistrates will be sceptical and will convict reluctantly.
Public confidence can be undermined in a number of ways. There have been many high-profile appeals in which inadequate police investigations or dishonest scientific evidence have come to light. I need not refer to such cases. Attacks on the system, and on the judges and lawyers who are part of it, from people in responsible positions, such as the Home Secretary, also undermine the trust of the people in our system.
If sentencing is disproportionately harsh and out of step with public opinion there will be no convictions. That has happened in the past, where juries refused to convict when there was capital punishment or transportation. It is obvious from the Bill that the Government have paid no heed to the Halliday report proposals that sentencing should be proportionate to the seriousness of the crime and should be based upon proper research evidence to the effect that neither deterrence nor incapacitation—removing people from the public—should be relied on as a justification for sentencing.

569
My second observation is this. All round the House, lawyers who have experience of the criminal law tend to differ from a number of others, the Home Office and elsewhere in this way. We see those who have committed criminal offences as individual human beings, not as demons. In my own case, 45 years of practice in the criminal courts at all levels, as prosecutor. defender and judge, have brought me into close contact with many people charged with and convicted of crime. Some are deranged; some, by reason of the circumstances of their upbringing, are hopelessly inadequate and illiterate; some are perfectly intelligent and capable, but have been denied the opportunities of education and employment, and have taken to crime as their only route to success. Many of those individuals need medical treatment. Through training and education, some are capable of rehabilitation and redemption, others need to be locked up for the safety of the public, and none of us has any hesitation in doing that when it is necessary. However, a fair society requires that the circumstances of each crime and each convicted criminal be considered individually. In each case decisions must be taken that best protect the public. It is a highly developed skill that we as a society entrust to people of integrity and experience, whom we call judges.
This Home Secretary claims that his status as an elected representative of the people permits him, he thinks, first to attack the lawyers, then the judiciary, and now the police. Apparently, we are to have elected chief police officers and elected public prosecutors. No one elected him to be the Home Secretary. He was appointed without any background or experience in that field. He clearly does not seem to understand the system and his constitutional position, and it is hoped that he will go on his way in as short a time as possible.
Mr Blunkett talks as though lawyers are remote from reality and that only he understands the concerns of ordinary people. I, too, come from a council house, in Wrexham, built on an estate where a very famous judge used to live, who had an even faster meteoric career rise than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer. He was Attorney-General at 32, Lord Chief Justice at 36 and Lord Chancellor at 38. He was as much a politician as a lawyer and was greatly concerned with punitive justice.
I was brought up in a police family, in a police station. From that point of view, I have every knowledge of the inside of police stations. I live in a village which, as many of your Lordships know, is always to be associated with tragic memories of one of the world's biggest colliery disasters. I live in an area devastated by steel closures and the loss of heavy industry, suffering deprivation and unemployment. But for the people of my community this Home Secretary goes out of his way to create fear of crime and distrust of the criminal justice system; and, by playing to the popular press, he does not, in my view, act in their best interests nor those of the people who voted him into parliamentary office.
570
Incidentally, Wrexham's only Lord Chancellor, the one to whom I earlier referred—I regret to say the only one in history—was described in the Dictionary of National Biography, as
"the worst judge ever to disgrace the Bench of England".
His name was Judge Jeffreys, of bloody assizes fame. He died in the Tower at the age of 42. Chancellors with Welsh connections should be wary!
Reverting to the Bill, there are four main areas that I want to address today. The first is the reduction of the rights of a defendant. From time to time attempts have been made to introduce measures that are supposed to balance the prosecution and defence, with no particular effect on conviction rates. In the Home Office Research Paper 199, The Right of Silence: the impact of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, the authors write:
"the statistical data presented in this study tend to suggest that there have not been changes in proportions of suspects charged, the level of guilty pleas or the proportion of defendants who are convicted, which can be related to the introduction of the provisions";
namely, the provisions of Section 34 of the Criminal Justice Act, which deals with the question of silence during interview. Here we go again.
With regard to the admission of hearsay, a witness may say, "X told me that". Maybe he did. But how does one challenge the truth of what X says? How does the jury assess X's reliability? It may be mistaken, manufactured or inaccurate. Already we have exceptions to the hearsay rule where people are dead or overseas, or where formal records or reports have to be proved. But now multiple hearsay is to be admissible. We on these Benches will press amendments to ensure that any reforms in this field are compatible with Article 6(1) of the European convention, which guarantees the right to examine witnesses.
In relation to the admission of evidence about character, it is not realised how often a person's bad character is placed before the jury at his own request and for his own tactical reasons. Any attack on a prosecution witness or any attempt to pretend that he is of good character will result in his own character going in.
I have two main criticisms of these proposals. First, it is proposed that evidence of acquittals will be introduced, which is purely evidence of propensity. Secondly, we say that it is essential that the admission of any convictions must, in the judge's view, satisfy tests of relevance and importance to the issues of guilt or innocence.
There are proposals to require the defence to disclose their witnesses. Anyone with any experience knows that when an alibi notice is served, the police go to see the alibi witnesses. It is difficult enough to give evidence anyway, but even more difficult to give evidence for the defence when a policeman appears at one's door, asking "Are you really sure that that was what happened?" Sometimes their nerves fail; on other occasions police statements are obtained and used to cross-examine in minute detail. The disclosure

571
of defence witnesses would give rise to the possibility of police pressure, which will do nothing for the administration of justice.
I turn to my second criticism, which relates to the abolition of the rule against double jeopardy. It is superficially attractive to say that there should be a retrial where very strong DNA evidence suggests that an acquittal was incorrect. But increasingly DNA cases will run their course. Today DNA is taken in every case, and there will be no surprises about it in the future.
The rule of double jeopardy protects us against inadequate investigation, poor presentation and provisional verdicts that hang over people for the rest of their lives. Rules provide for the protection of freedom, which we in this country have forgotten. The first things to go in our former colonies were juries. There have been political trials. I have in mind those of Mr Anwar in Malaysia, Mr Jeyeretnam in Singapore, and today in particular, since the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn, was characteristically uncharitable about Zimbabwe, the leader of the MDC in Zimbabwe, who faces multiple charges of treason. In that country judges sit in criminal trials with lay assessors appointed by the registrar of the court from a list supplied by the Ministry of Justice, and they have to be qualified in the administration of justice or in any question or have experience and skill in any matter that may be considered in the trial.
This Government seek to introduce a Zimbabwean system of justice into an important area of the criminal process. The proposed abolition of juries in cases of serious fraud and cases in which there is a suspicion of jury tampering represents no reform at all. It is necessary to explain in simple terms to a jury what a fraud trial is about. It is entirely wrong that a person should be sent to prison because some arcane discussion has taken place in court which the ordinary citizen cannot understand.
In any event, the conviction rate is 85 per cent, higher than normal, in about 100 cases in the year. It is not this particular provision that concerns me, but where it leads. If juries can be abolished in such serious crime, why not, the argument will be in a year or two, in less serious crime?
Jury tampering is another issue. I am more concerned about jury intimidation, both by the police and from the public gallery. We all have experience of the family staring down into the court and intimidating witnesses, defendants and juries. But practical steps can be taken in sensitive cases to place juries out of view of the public gallery, to ensure anonymity for them and to provide protection as well. It is not necessary to abolish juries—just to take sensible, practical steps to deal with problems when they arise.
Finally, I turn to minimum sentences and fixed tariffs in life cases. The paradox is that crime is falling but prison sentences are being ratcheted up. Why are the Government constantly seeking to fetter not just the judiciary but the proposed sentencing council
572
before it has even begun to do its work? This is nothing new; we have argued about it many times. The proposals are arbitrary and will he examined by us with considerable care.
Back to principle: do these provisions involve the public more deeply in the criminal justice system? Yes, they do, where the proposal is to make it less easy to avoid jury service, but no, in so far as there is an introduction of the abolition of juries in serious cases. Does the Bill see criminals as individual human beings, about whose future rational and just decisions must be made? No, it continues the process of demonising them with mandatory and minimum sentences which pay no regard to the particular problems they have had, the problems they pose to the public and their future rehabilitation.
This Bill will take us a very considerable time. Particularly with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, now involved, I look forward to it very much.
5.33 p.m.
Lord Woolf: My Lords, I begin, on behalf of the judiciary, by warmly congratulating my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor on both his appointments. They will be very important to the administration of justice at a time when we will be subject to a period of transition.
I also warmly echo the comments that have already been made about the promotion of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to Minister of State. We in the judiciary admire the contribution she makes to this House very much indeed, and we are confident that will continue in her new role.
I hope it is appropriate if I take this, my first opportunity, to say a word about the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg. I know, as does the judiciary, that he strove immensely to improve the administration of justice. For that and the other things he did, he certainly justifies the support and commendation of the judiciary.
This Bill is the companion of the Courts Bill, which the noble and learned Lord was responsible for introducing to this House last year. Some of the reforms contained in the Courts Bill and this Bill are capable of making significant improvements to the criminal justice system. The Government, Lord Justice Auld and Mr Halliday, upon whose distinguished, farsighted reports much of the Bill is based, are to be congratulated on the provisions.
Unfortunately, there are differences of opinion between the Government and the judiciary as to certain features of the Bill—features on which the Home Secretary and I have agreed to disagree. In this situation, indeed, I ask your Lordships to act as arbiters, giving your decision as to the form the Bill should take after you have examined its provisions closely, so that it will make the maximum contribution to realising the improvements we would all like to see in the criminal justice system. It is, of course, obvious—indeed, it goes without saying—that

573
whatever form the Bill ultimately takes, when it becomes law it will be observed and applied by the judiciary.
The views that I am about to express are not mine alone but also those of the senior judiciary, particularly the Lords Justices who preside in the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, day in and day out, with whom I discussed these provisions last week.
There is no dispute, so far as the judiciary is concerned, that the criminal justice system needs improving. As to the workings of the criminal courts, the Auld report identified the failings and made recommendations as to how they could be addressed. As to sentencing, the Halliday report reveals weaknesses. It attempts to provide answers. The need for those answers is obvious; it is demonstrated by the deeply disturbing statistics that we all hear too often. Some 58 per cent of adults discharged from prison are reconvicted within two years of release, and nearly three-quarters of young offenders are also reconvicted within two years of release. But, as we have heard, the story is not entirely negative. Fortunately, crime overall is at a lower level than it was in the early 1990s.
A significant problem with the criminal justice system is that it is excessively complex. The Auld solution was to have an effective criminal procedure rule committee, with a membership of those who are intimately involved with what happens within the criminal courts. The committee would produce an understandable code for the conduct of proceedings in which practitioners could have confidence, because of the standing of the code's authors. The fact that those authors had first-hand experience of the system would give the code its authority.
The Auld vision of what could be achieved by the proposed criminal procedure rule committee impacts on the clauses in Parts 5 to 11 of the Bill. Among those clauses are some of the most controversial clauses in the Bill. This is especially true of the clauses which are seen by many as threatening what are generally regarded as fundamental safeguards contained within our criminal justice system. I am referring to the changes to the right to trial by jury, the rules of evidence and the retrial of serious offences.
I recognise that many strong and sincere opposing views will undoubtedly be advanced to your Lordships. In those circumstances, instead of becoming involved in the matters which will be well ventilated before your Lordships, I propose merely to stress that if these powers remain part of the Bill, it should be made clear that they can be exercised only when it is in the interests of justice for this to happen. That should ensure that there is the minimum risk of the exercise of those powers resulting in injustice. I urge the House that, particularly when introducing innovations of such a nature, within our system it is critically important to allow the trial judge to make the just decision in the light of the particular circumstances of the case, having heard the argument from both sides.
However, a characteristic of the relevant clauses, as drafted at present, is that they do not provide an unfettered discretion to that judge to say yes or no. The
574
provisions are bespattered with requirements as to what a judge must do. Some of the clauses provide a degree of discretion to the trial judge, but that is not always the case.
A number of other clauses in the Bill inadvisedly anticipate the work of the criminal procedure rules committee. The clauses are not drafted as they would be drafted by that committee—with practical experience of litigation. Instead of reducing complexity they will increase it. They will also lead to an increasing number of appeals. I have not time to provide your Lordships with details of the matters to which I refer, so I have delivered to the Library a lengthy document that sets out what the judiciary, whom I represent, regard as being the problem areas. I hope that in Committee your Lordships will be assisted by that paper.
I turn to the sentencing provisions in the Bill. Like the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay of St Johns, I welcome many of the provisions dealing with sentencing. A greater range of alternative sentences is to be welcomed. However, as has already been indicated, they will be valueless without the necessary resources.
The judiciary also have concerns about the amendments that were introduced into the Bill at a late stage in its passage through the other place. Again. they relate to judicial discretion. The conventional relationship between the judiciary and Parliament on sentencing is that Parliament should set out the framework in which the judge, or, on appeal. the Court of Appeal, should exercise their discretion in imposing the sentence. Consistency is important between one sentence and another—an appropriate degree of proportionality between the sentences for different offences.
To achieve the necessary consistency the Court of Appeal developed the practice of giving guideline judgments when dealing with a number of appeals in relation to a particular crime. Building on that practice the Sentencing Advisory Panel, an expert body, was established to advise the Court of Appeal, who have welcomed the advice from that body. The Bill proposes the establishing of a sentencing guidelines council. The judiciary welcomed the creation of a council consisting of sentencers. However, an amendment has extended the membership and, in doing so, has changed the character of the council. I ask your Lordships to look at the membership that is now proposed. Of course the persons referred to are persons with knowledge of the criminal justice system—senior policemen. senior civil servants—but should they be members of a body that is to give advice to the judiciary?
The Sentencing Advisory Panel already has a broad expert membership. Surely that is the body upon which additional members should be placed to advise the sentencing guidelines council without being part of its adjudication process. The council can and will consult whoever it wishes. If the council is to carry real clout, as it must if it is to be effective, its membership

575
should be confined to the judiciary. I was pleased to hear the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Anelay.
I turn to the statutory guidance for murder. Although the matter is an initiative without precedent, there is no constitutional reason why a statute cannot contain sentencing guidelines. However, providing guidance in a statute is not advisable. The guidance should be given by the council that the Bill establishes. Proposing a council to make guidelines at the same time as including one's own guidance in the legislation establishing the council is extraordinary.
I shall now summarise the difficulties I have with what is proposed—although, having heard the comments of the noble Baroness, I shall be brief. I endorse her suggestion on behalf of the judiciary. It is my contention and that of the judiciary that for the Home Secretary to fix the minimum period that a person convicted of murder should serve before his case can be considered by the Parole Board has now been shown to be unlawful. However, the statutory guidance that is the Government's proposed response is the responsibility of the Home Secretary. The council or the panel can carry out research and consultation. That was lacking in the case of the proposed statutory guidance that has been introduced into the Bill.
Your Lordships know that the majority of murders are not horror murders involving paedophiles, contract killers or psychopaths, but those committed between two individuals who know each other well—particularly when influenced by alcohol. There are also murderers who contend that they were acting in self-defence but are found guilty of murder because they used too much force. I recognise that there are some murderers who will never be released. There are then a range of other murders for which differing periods should elapse before the offender could be considered for parole. Finally, there are murders where the consequence of the crimes far exceed what the offenders intended, but tragically resulted in someone's death.
A year ago I issued new guidelines on murder that set out the periods that I thought were appropriate, having received the advice of the Sentencing Advisory Panel. The guidance echoed the advice of the panel. Before the guidance was issued I consulted the three Ministers concerned with criminal justice. They made helpful suggestions which I incorporated in the guidance when it was issued. I understood that that guidance was regarded as helping to achieve consistency. Until the decision in the Anderson case, that guidance was applied by the judiciary. The guidance resulted in recommendations that were either followed by the Home Secretary or differed only as to a nominal one or two years.
The Home Secretary's surprising response to the decision of the House of Lords in the Anderson case was to introduce the proposal that is now in the Bill for statutory guidance. That is out of line with the guidance for which I was responsible a year before, and which had been followed up to the Anderson case
576
without exception. Your Lordships may feel that the fact that that guidance was the response to a decision of the House of Lords indicates the problems that arise if sentencing becomes the subject of political interest.
Therefore, when I heard of the suggestion made in another place by Oliver Letwin, it seemed to me that it was a way of achieving what was required. So if I may, I shall merely endorse the proposal made by the noble Baroness in her comments. It seems to me that the suggestion in her speech would be a way of squaring the circle and taking sentencing out of politics, which must be a most important objective, particularly in the case of crimes as serious as murder.
I am very conscious of the time that I have again taken up in your Lordships' House. I hope that the paper that I have provided will provide assistance. I shall merely indicate that there are very good things in the Bill, but we must not let the faults to which I have referred and which are contained in my paper destroy the quality of the proposals.
5.51 p.m.
Lord Harris of Haringey: My Lords, I begin by echoing the congratulations already given to my noble friends on their respective promotions.
I rather suspect that this Bill will not be without controversy in your Lordships' House. However, I also believe that many of the concerns that will be raised over the weeks and months ahead, and indeed many that have been raised today, will seem incomprehensible to many of those outside this House among the general public. I declare an interest as I chair the Metropolitan Police Authority. However, as an elected member of the London Assembly, I have to say that I am sure that most of my constituents will be—as I am—broadly and indeed enthusiastically in favour of the general thrust of the proposals.
For many people there is a crisis of confidence in our criminal justice system. It is being brought into disrepute by some of the problems that the Bill is designed to remedy. There is no question but that that system has in the past failed sufficiently to support the needs of victims and witnesses. Listening to the remarks from some noble Lords, I also fear that rather than defending juries, we are in danger of failing to treat them as adults by neglecting to give them the maximum amount of information and failing to allow them to use all the available evidence to make fully informed decisions.
It seems to me that what the Bill does is to create a level playing field on the admissibility of evidence. I cannot understand why those who oppose the Bill's provisions refuse to trust the wisdom and common sense of juries. I know that many noble Lords are or have been barristers; so I shall be careful in what I say. However, it almost seems to me that those who practise in the law have an arrogance towards those who do not. There is an assumption that jurors are poor bewildered souls who cannot be expected to understand the complexities of evidence and cannot be trusted to weigh the differing matter that is placed before them.

577
Let me give some examples of cases where the new provisions might have made a difference in terms of the admissibility of evidence. Two men were estimated to have stolen £140,000 from a number of victims by way of a scam at railway stations. One of them would put a suit carrier down next to another's luggage on the platform and the other would then remove both suit carrier and luggage. Both were identified and charged. One claimed that the clear CCTV evidence actually showed his wayward twin brother, while he was a sober businessman. The jury did not hear, as a result of his misleading claim to good character, of his previous 12 convictions for dishonesty.
In North Wales, a man was arrested for going equipped to steal in a hotel in Llandudno. He had in his possession thin strips of mica which, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, can be used for slipping room locks. The CPS discontinued the case as there was insufficient supporting evidence. Yet the man had 200 previous convictions for similar offences.
In West Mercia, someone with a series of previous convictions for burglary was found coming out of a house. He was acquitted in court, without the previous convictions being disclosed, on the basis of his rather strange explanation that he had gone into the house to look for his lost dog—a dog of which there was no trace.
As has been said, there are undoubtedly some who will argue that the Bill will be a charter to the police to round up the usual suspects. However, I believe that things have moved on since the bad old days. Much tighter rules are now in place and the police themselves are subject to far more internal checks and balances. Modern policing now applies transparent decision-making criteria and audit trails before charges are brought. Suspects have their rights safeguarded through the rules under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act. There is independent CPS scrutiny, and that is strengthened by the Bill.
Moreover, juries are by no means automatically pro-police evidence; indeed, they are often very questioning of what the police put before them. In any event, it will be for the jurors themselves to decide. It is rather patronising for people to assume that jurors will not be able to make up their own minds as to whether or not the similar fact evidence is relevant. It cannot be right—nor do the public at large believe that it is right—to ask a jury to reach a just decision on guilt or innocence when such a significant piece of information as the existence of one or more previous similar convictions is deliberately and permanently withheld from them.
There will also no doubt be much fuss about the proposals for trials without juries. Again, however, let us ensure that this is put in proportion. Why should it not be open to defendants to opt for a trial without a jury? They may feel that there has been so much pretrial publicity that their interests will be better served without a jury, or alternatively that their public reputation for other matters—perhaps they appeared in the "Big Brother" house or some such—was such that a jury might be prejudiced against them.
578
Moreover, the proposals in Clause 43 to allow the prosecution to apply for a trial without a jury where there is a real and present danger of jury tampering have to be in the interests of justice. The Bill makes it clear that the conditions for that will make such cases rare and exceptional. However, the rareness and exceptional nature of the cases should not obscure the growing significance of this problem. I am told that the cost to the Metropolitan Police over the past two years for jury protection in nine full trials has been £9 million, equivalent to more than 26,600 police days a year diverted from mainstream policing in London. I might add that that significant cost has to be met by the Metropolitan Police with little or no notice and irrespective of which force or agency has had the lead in the investigation.
If the public are to have confidence in the criminal justice system, then the outcome of all trials has to be seen to be free from undue influence. Far from undermining a fundamental principle of the legal system, these proposals will protect its integrity. In addition, surely there should be some duty of care towards individual jurors. It is not right that they, and those closest to them, may be put at risk from the acts of a small but dangerous group of criminals in particular cases. Nor is it a means of ensuring a conviction by means of a jury-less trial. In practice, most cases where there is currently jury protection lead to a conviction. If anything is likely to be prejudicial, it is to be told as a juror that the case you are trying requires you to be physically protected from the defendants and their associates.
For similar reasons, the provisions in Clause 27 and Schedule 2 to provide for conditions to be placed on pre-charge bail are to be welcomed. The proposed arrangements can ensure that there is no attempt to intimidate or interfere with witnesses or evidence. However, it is important that the resource implications of enforcing such bail conditions are acknowledged, and it is not clear why in the Bill the power to impose such conditions is so limited. Surely in the interests of protecting communities from intimidation or persistent criminality, the power to impose pre-charge conditions should be available in all cases.
The Bill also contains a welcome provision on defence disclosure, which" again, is about creating a level playing field. It is about there being no surprises, and that must be sensible. It will reduce legal argument in the court and thereby reduce court costs. It will also allow accounts of events and alibis to be verified, with the possible consequence that cases can be ended earlier and in the defendant's favour.
The requirement under Clause 34 is similarly important. At present it is not uncommon for the defence to approach several expert witnesses but to use only the one who supports the defence offered. Why should the other, rejected expert testimony he kept from the jury? Why does that add to justice?
Clause 271 sets out minimum sentences for unauthorised use of firearms which are welcome. I sincerely hope that they will act as a deterrent to the routine carrying of firearms as a fashion accessory, the

579
risk of which is that a minor dispute or scuffle can quickly escalate into a serious incident in which a firearm is used.
In a recent case an individual was shot by someone with whom he had had a minor dispute on a dance floor. The bullet killed the first victim, and, having passed through him, travelled through a partition wall and killed a second unrelated victim. If this clause proves an effective deterrent in reducing the number of people carrying firearms in public, such incidents will become less likely and public safety will be improved and lives saved.
Similarly, Clause 296 is also about saving lives by increasing potential penalties for those who cause death by drink driving, aggravated vehicle taking and dangerous driving. That is welcome and long overdue. People need to understand that a car can be just as lethal a weapon as a gun; it must only be driven responsibly, and with care. However, I regret that the opportunity has not been taken in the Bill to enforce a ban on the sale of imitation firearms, and anything that could reasonably be mistaken for a firearm.
Finally, I want to say a word about Clauses 7 and 8, which permit fingerprints and DNA samples to be taken from those arrested for a recordable offence. The technology now exists in all Metropolitan Police custody suites to allow fingerprints to be taken electronically with results being produced in minutes. These provisions will help to prevent mistakes of identity. They will prevent people from providing false identities in order subsequently to abscond. They will ensure that arrested persons who are wanted in connection with previous offences can be identified more quickly.
I fail to see why that can be against the public interest, or against the interests of justice. In terms of those subject to these procedures, the action of taking fingerprints and a DNA sample is minor. However, the potential benefits to the victims of crime and society generally in detecting crimes and protecting the general public from criminality are enormous.
The changes before us today will, I believe, go a long way towards improving public confidence in the criminal justice system. They will also do a considerable amount to ensure that victims and witnesses are presented with a system that is fair and just for them and where there is a genuinely level playing field between the rights of those accused and the often neglected rights of the victims of crime. I urge your Lordships to support the Bill.
6.2 p.m.
Lord Renton: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, has made an interesting speech of considerable detail, with much of which I agree. I am particularly glad that he mentioned that great care should be taken to protect jurors who sometimes are subject to being molested. Your Lordships have heard a very valuable speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice. It proves how valuable it is for members of the
580
higher judiciary to be Members of your Lordships' House. If steps were taken to stop that, which I happen to believe the Government may have in mind, that would have a bad effect on the constitution.
About a third of my practice was in criminal law and sometimes I used to say to criminals that it is better to confess before being found out. I confess that I was called to the Bar just over 70 years ago. I have not practised for a number of years but I have always kept in touch. I had a varied practice, a third of which was criminal and I undertook a good deal of part-time judicial work as a recorder, indeed also as a relief judge at the Old Bailey. Throughout all those years when I did judicial work I was also a Member of another place, so no one imagined that there had to be separation of responsibility. Such matters can be combined and can be of advantage to each other.
The Lord Chancellor referred to the effect of the present system. The Bill consists of 374 pages, not to alter the law relating to offences to any great extent, but to deal with procedure, with sentencing and particularly with evidence. I do not want to detain your Lordships for long, although my view is that much of the Bill is acceptable and welcome, although some provisions, especially those dealing with evidence, are controversial and I must comment on them.
We must be careful to prevent previous offences, or other evidence of bad character, from being admitted except in very relevant circumstances. Surely previous convictions should be revealed only if they are truly similar to the offence for which the accused is being tried; for example, if the accused is being tried for fraud and it is a similar type of fraud for which he has already been convicted twice, I see no objection to the prosecution, at the discretion of the judge, revealing those two convictions. But if the accused has never been convicted for such an offence of fraud it would be contrary to a long-established principle of justice for a different kind of offence, or even a different kind of fraud, to be revealed.
I have to confess that I am totally opposed to hearsay evidence ever being used. My main reason is that hearsay is so easily fabricated not only by the defence, but also by the prosecution. When it is fabricated it may be impossible to challenge. Another reason against it is that the person whose hearsay evidence is quoted may never come before the court and may never be challenged under cross-examination. Do not let us allow hearsay to be admitted! I know that is a controversial view but it is one that I hold.
I shall refer briefly to several other controversial matters. In my opinion, the only circumstance in which trial without jury should be allowed, at the discretion of the trial judge, is in a very complicated fraud case that is likely to last more than, say, a fortnight. An ordinary jury may not be able to follow it well enough to reach a verdict. I remember a long-term fraud case many years ago that took place at Chelmsford Assizes in which I was defending. The jury

581
were utterly puzzled by the case. The judge did his best to clarify the matter but had to drop a hint to the jurors that he hoped that they would convict.
In such a case I very much doubt whether justice is done by having an ordinary jury. We could have special juries. If all jurors in very long cases have their lives and livelihoods interrupted, members of a special jury may suffer even more than most members of common juries. In long, difficult fraud cases we have to consider carefully whether to allow the judge to try the matter on his own at his discretion. Therefore, I believe that the Government are right to propose that in very limited circumstances we can do without trial by jury.
As to permitting retrials, I am very doubtful. That could lead to the prosecution starting a trial without enough evidence and if the accused is acquitted they could try harder and search for more and better evidence. I do not think that that is the way to achieve justice. That is not the way for the prosecution to function.
In conclusion, the Bill is a valiant attempt to improve our administration of criminal justice. Much of it—in fact, most of it—does so; but we must fully scrutinise those controversial parts of the Bill which might sometimes cause injustice.
6.10 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I first share from these Benches in the congratulations being offered to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on their recent appointment.
I welcome the publication of the Bill, although I too have some reservations. The Bill is about punishments, a crucial matter for our society. Indeed, as a Bishop concerned for much of my ministry with education of the young, the issue of discipline, and ensuring that pupils achieved the highest standards, it is of great concern to me. I raise this issue because it goes to the heart of the Bill, and I echo the wise words of David Faulkner who was for a while a senior civil servant in the Home Office. In his recent book Crime, State and Citizen, he wrote that in school, at home, at work and in the criminal justice system there is both discipline and punishment.
Not all punishment involves suffering. In recent years, the criminal justice system has widened to include anti-social behaviour orders, drug abstinence orders, rehabilitation orders and much else. Not all of these involve punishment in the sense of causing suffering. They are instead sanctions that society has decided to make available through Parliament and the courts to enforce standards of behaviour that it thinks desirable. I applaud this. There is a crying need to try to prevent disorderly behaviour, drug taking and other anti-social behaviour.
My concern is that there seems to be an increasing political assumption, first, that wrongdoing must be visited by punishment and, secondly, that such punishment must on that account cause suffering to the offender. There are several difficulties with this.
582
The welcome emphasis on drug rehabilitation—such as that which I have personally witnessed in the THOMAS project in Blackburn, run by a gifted Roman Catholic priest but funded by the Government—depends on offenders' co-operation and goodwill in dealing with drugs, alcohol and improving their education. However, if such programmes are seen as part of punishment and are imposed with an emphasis on coercion with strong sanctions for non-compliance, there will be difficulties. Such problems will increase if the programmes are delivered by agencies that enter into partnership with the criminal justice system but are not committed to punishment.
The Bill contains many interesting provisions, such as those for so-called juveniles, making parenting orders available at an earlier stage. It also allows suspects to be tested for specified class A drugs, making a presumption against bail for anyone who tests positive but refuses to undergo assessment. However, in a submission to a briefing in the House of Lords on 22nd May, the Children's Society pointed out that random use of class A drugs for juveniles is sadly not uncommon, but that this will very rarely lead into long-term dependence on class A drugs. Only 3 per cent of children who try such drugs become addicted. Yet the Bill makes provision for compulsory drug testing for juveniles at the time of charging; at the pre-sentence stage; and during the serving of community orders. There are already youth offending teams which can assess juveniles for the use of drugs. It is this use of compulsion and coercion that I find so difficult.
A second concern also related to juveniles. Section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933 allows for indeterminate life sentences. This provision has rarely been used, and in most trials, case law has argued that only where assessment is impossible should this section be used and an indeterminate sentence be imposed for a juvenile. But the Bill allows for indeterminate sentences for sexual and violent offences. Our concern must be that juveniles on such sentences may well lose all hope. The 1991 Act expressed very clearly that the sentence needed to express just desserts and be related proportionately to the offence, rightly distinguishing between the offender and the offence. The offence was punished; some sort of atonement was achieved; and the offender could move on. In the Christian tradition, this has been expressed as hating the sin, not the sinner. The danger is that the Bill moves more towards indeterminate sentences, which are very hard to administer equitably, and to mandatory sentences that ignore mitigating factors.
I echo the words of the Select Committee on Home Affairs in its report of 4th December 2002 on the Bill. It said:
"There is much in the Bill that we support, including the provision to assist witnesses in giving their evidence … the transfer of responsibility for charging to the Crown Prosecution Service … and the new sentencing provisions".

583
I agree strongly with this, for it is important that new sentencing provisions are tied to better rehabilitation, supervision and to achieving reductions in re-offending. The work of the Youth Justice Board has achieved real success with the juvenile estate in the past two years, reducing re-offending by up to 20 per cent and winning the co-operation of disaffected young people. That is why I question whether the tenor of the Bill need be so coercive.
I share the concerns of the Select Committee on Home Affairs that the provisions on admitting evidence of bad character and past convictions—subjects referred to by other noble Lords—will influence sentencing procedures and outcomes. I, and many others, cannot see how the Government's wish to reduce the numbers in prison and so relieve the undoubted pressure on our prisons can be achieved without the determination to develop forms of punishment other than imprisonment. I beg the Government to resist the pressure, every time that a serious crime which rightly outrages society is reported in the media, to respond simplistically by authorising increased prison sentences. Overcrowded prisons may be an attempt to punish—although without linking prisoners with their offences, that is questionable. Certainly, overcrowded prisons do not easily rehabilitate the offender. What we need is perhaps a fundamental re-examination of the meaning, purpose and methods of punishment. I suggest that this part of the Bill be recast in a less coercive direction.
We on these Benches share the concern of many noble and learned Lords about the provisions on trial by jury and the making known of previous convictions, and we shall watch closely the progress of these provisions at Committee stage.
Nevertheless, this is a Bill which I believe could improve the relationship between probation, prison and courts services. We need to get the balance right. Much will depend on the resources available to give effect to the Bill—not only staff, buildings and money, the usual things, but leadership, energy, integrity and commitment. Even more will depend on whether its provisions are applied in a spirit of compassion and reconciliation, where that is possible, rather than by rigid enforcement, punishment, repression and social exclusion.
6.18 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, elements of the Bill are to be welcomed, particularly the attempt to construct a rational and creative sentencing framework so that the courts can make disposals that are more relevant both to the offence and to the offender. However, other elements are not so welcome. The Bill states that its aims are to,
"rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the victim and the community so as to reduce crime and bring more offenders to justice".
However, this determination to "fill the justice gap" carries with it a punitive overtone and the real risk that the prison population will continue to soar unless truly
584
effective and convincing alternatives are available which command the active confidence of sentencers and public alike. Here I must declare an interest as chairman of Rethinking Crime and Punishment, a three-year initiative funded by the Esmée Fairbairn Foundation. It is looking at the exponential rise in the use of custody in this country, which neither deters nor rehabilitates, and is aiming, through a strategic grant-making programme, to raise the level of public debate, increase the information available to the public—as well as sentencers, politicians and the press—and to engage the public more directly in our criminal justice system.
We are also taking a hard look at the quality, resourcing and reasons for what works and what does not work in the existing provision of community penalties through a newly established, independent commission of inquiry chaired by Lord Coulsfield which will report in June next year. I am looking forward to discussing this in the near future with the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, who I am delighted to see in her place. She is indeed a very beautiful buffer.
It is absolutely right that the needs and rights of victims should be given the attention and place they deserve. It is also right that the community's needs are taken into account, that more criminals are caught and convicted and that, in the process, everyone is better protected. I believe, however, that this has more to do with making people face up to their crimes and their consequences, doing so publicly and visibly, making reparation and apologising so that victims have a sense of real justice being done, rather than the offender simply disappearing into the black hole of prison. But it is in this process of rebalancing that we risk some very undesirable outcomes.
Despite the welcome proposals that an offence should be,
"so serious that neither a fine alone nor a community sentence can be justified for the offence",
and that,
"custodial sentences must be for the shortest term … commensurate with the seriousness of the offence"
the Bill contains provisions for more sentences, longer sentences and greater possibilities of breach of community penalties.
By increasing magistrates' courts sentencing powers from six to 12 months, the wider use of custody is almost inevitable, and particularly the widely discredited short prison sentence. Increased use of custody is also likely in the ways in which the four new sentences of the generic community order, custody plus, intermittent custody and custody minus may be applied. Despite the fact that they are indeed creative, more flexible and, as such, very welcome, the risks are that so-called "sanction stacking" of the 12 elements of the generic community service order in all these new sentences will greatly increase the risk of breach, while also allowing less leeway for the choice of appropriate, constructive penalties before an offender risks custody.

585
There must be clarity and safeguards in the application of these sentences if we are not to find, faute de mieux, ever greater numbers of offenders ending up in custody, with breach being the greatest of these risks, Can the Minister give undertakings on this?
Although I am well aware of the reservations there are on the complexity and cost of administering intermittent custody, the potential benefits are so positive, particularly for women and in terms of making penalties constructive rather than purely punitive, that they have my full support.
However, the overarching worry about all these proposals is that they are crucially dependent for their effectiveness on the resources made available in the community to put them into effect. This means an enormous increase in money and manpower to both the magistracy and the probation service. The magistracy is currently 1,500 under strength, according to the estimable Rachel Lipscomb, chairman of the Magistrates' Association. She predicts that another 3,000 magistrates will be needed on top of the shortfall to meet the demands of the extra work that the new powers will put on them. This is a difficult and costly task of both recruitment and training that will take a long time to realise. Equally, the probation service is under enormous strain to deliver the service currently expected of it. The funding allocated in the last spending review is expected to deliver a further 1,100 fully trained officers, a process that takes two years. But 500 of these are needed to maintain the service at its current levels. Meanwhile, it has been calculated that the Bill as a whole will lead to a 30 per cent increase in the workload. This means that there is no way that it will be in a position to meet the requirements of the Bill for over two years, even with pilot schemes and phased implementation.
There are ingenious plans to introduce a new, lower grade of officer at NVQ level 3 to outsource some of the work to the voluntary sector and to the private sector and even to bring retired officers back into the fray. I know that discussions are taking place between the probation and prison services to ensure what they call "end-to-end delivery". But we need assurances from the Minister that there is no question of the implementation of those parts of the Bill which involve both the magistracy and the community-based services until the necessary money and manpower are in place for both services to implement them properly; otherwise, it is a nonsense.
The Government might also consider another fundamental rebalancing exercise. This is the planned spending increase for next year for prison places, which is enormously in excess of that planned for the probation service. The Home Office resource budget plan for 2003–04 shows an allocation to the Prison Service of almost four times that allocated to the probation service. This hardly encourages one to believe that the Government are as enthusiastic about supporting community-based penalties as they say they are. What it shows is that they are actually
586
planning for the prison population to rise further, something we had all hoped to see contained, at the very least, by the new framework.
This House does not need reminding that currently we have a prison population bursting at the seams. A new all-time high was announced last Friday. It leaves the Prison Service unable to deliver the sort of outcomes it could and should be able to deliver, and puts this country at the top of the league of imprisonment in Europe, which should make us hang our heads in shame. Yet while we are debating this Bill, to make provision for a sentencing framework which includes rehabilitation, reparation and restoration in the community at its centre, adequate resources for its proper implementation are not in place, only future promises. The Government are simultaneously planning for the very increased use of imprisonment they claim they do not wish to encourage. This is an Alice in Wonderland world. If the Government rebalanced, by reversing their spending priorities, perhaps the community penalties would have a chance of becoming an effective reality, the aspirations of the Bill could be realised and coherence, consistency and confidence, which were the theme of the Home Secretary, might then be able to grow.
Finally, I must flag up, once again, my deep concerns about the way we treat children who offend in this country, for the tentacles of this Bill are reaching down to children. We are increasingly incarcerating children in England and Wales to the extent that our practices have been seriously criticised for violating Article 37(b) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. Currently there are approximately 3,000 children under 18 in custody, of whom over 530 are 15 and under. About half of these are in local authority secure units and the rest are in secure training centres or prison. I have never doubted the need for some children to be in secure accommodation, but these numbers are creeping up steadily, and now this Bill has two measures which further increase the courts' powers to detain children under 18. The first, as we have heard, is detention for public protection for a specified sexual or violent offence, which is indeterminate. In a Parliamentary Question the Government said that about 30 children a year would receive such a detention for life. The other is in connection with the new mandatory sentences for murder which in the case of offenders under 18—the suggested starting point—is 15 years. The Home Secretary, I am glad to say, undertook to look again at these provisions, but I feel—this is what I want to flag up—that when we find ourselves even articulating the idea of such sanctions for children in the context of mandatory life sentences for murder we really must stand back and ask ourselves about what we are saying or doing. However passionate the Home Secretary and others are to bring offenders to book and crack down on them, where children are

587
concerned that must be tempered by understanding, compassion and a humanity which allows for the possibility of such notions as redemption and even mercy and forgiveness. Otherwise, the words,
"Lord forgive them for they know not what they do",
could be applied not only to the children but to us, the adults who judge and condemn.
This Bill does have much to commend it. But not until its flaws have been addressed and eradicated and the resources needed to implement it fully and properly are firmly in place and not until we have honed a framework for criminal justice in this country in which we can truly say we have confidence and pride should it be allowed to reach the statute book.
6.31 p.m.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, I shall deal only with sentencing. In a situation that is fraught with actual and potential disharmony, it is often wise to identify at least what can be called common ground or what is hardly likely to be disputed. It is of course for Parliament to set the framework. That involves settling the maximum but leaving the judges to determine the sentence that fits the particular facts of the crime.
Here comes the first note of harmony. It was fully recognised by the Home Office, but in 1990—those halcyon days when the prison population was only a little more than half its current figure. In a White Paper entitled, Criminal Justice and Protecting the Public—I stress those last three words—the Home Office said in paragraph 2.16:
"it is not the Government's intention that Parliament should burden the courts with strict legislative guidelines. The courts have shown great skill in the way they sentence exceptional cases. The courts will properly continue to have the wide discretion they need if they are to deal justly with the great variety of crimes which come before them. The Government rejects a rigid statutory framework, on the lines of those introduced in the United States, or a system of minimum mandatory sentences in certain offences"—
I also stress that. The passage continues:
"This would make it more difficult to sentence justly in exceptional cases. It could also result in more acquittals by juries, with more guilty men and women going free unjustly as a result".
Noble Lords will have noticed that I emphasised the references to justice.
Let me develop the final proposition in that quotation; that is, that:
"It could result in more acquittals by juries, with more guilty men and women going free unjustly as a result",
and let me give five examples of cases where such acquittals could occur.
First, there will be occasions when juries are aware, as they could be, that the defendant faces a mandatory sentence if convicted. They will for that reason not convict. Secondly, there will be refusals by defendants to enter, as they should, pleas of guilty. In some such cases—because of the heavy onus of proof—there will be acquittals. Thirdly, there will be cases where witnesses, particularly those in close relationship with
588
the defendant and who know the consequences of a conviction, will refuse to give evidence or prove to be unreliable witnesses. Fourthly, there could be cases, as has been pointed out by the senior judiciary and politicians, of victims being killed in order to avoid the risk of detection and subsequent life imprisonment. Finally, in order to be sure of obtaining a conviction, there will be cases where the prosecution will find themselves obliged to accept an unrealistic plea bargain, as is well known to be the case in America.
I turn to the terms of the Bill. This House has said more than once that a politician, such as the Home Secretary or a junior Minister, has no part to play in the judicial process of sentencing and accordingly should have no power to fix the minimum—or, indeed, any—period which the offender must spend in prison.
The Human Rights Act 1998, which this Government enthusiastically passed, incorporated the European Convention on Human Rights into English law. Article 6 of that convention guarantees litigants an independent and impartial appeal. It is of course common ground that the rule of law obliges the English courts to apply the provisions of the Human Rights Act.
Recently, the House of Lords Appellate Committee, applying the European legislation, decided that the Home Secretary, in seeking to play a decisive role in fixing the period that those convicted of murder must stay in prison, was acting unlawfully. The subsequent decision was the last straw so far as the Home Secretary was concerned. It concerned immigration law and again relied on the Court of Human Rights legislation to establish that what the Home Secretary was proposing was unlawful. The Home Secretary's reaction was that of anger and frustration because he was being deprived of a power.
At that point in time, the Criminal Justice Bill, which is now before us, was going through another place. In Committee, there were discussions on Clause 160, which is entitled, "The Sentencing Guidelines Council", which, subject always to the residual judicial discretion, stipulates the appropriate range of sentences for particular crimes. However, on Report, the Home Secretary suddenly introduced a series of mandatory starting minimum sentences in relation to the automatic mandatory life sentence for murder. Some have categorised Schedule 17, which contains these mandatory starting minimum sentences, as "Blunkett's revenge". They are, as was recently pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, a process of sentencing by ministerial decree.
There are currently existing guidelines recommending but not imposing minimum sentences for murder, which were issued, as we heard, by the Lord Chief Justice last year after agreeing them with the Sentencing Advisory Panel and, as I understood from his speech, with the approval of the Minister. There has never been any suggestion that the Lord Chief Justice's recommendations, which are on average about 50 per cent below those of the Home Secretary, were inadequate in any way, nor have there been any suggestions that those guidelines are being applied inconsistently.

589
Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in answer to a written Parliamentary Question as to how many life sentence prisoners had been imprisoned for longer than their judicial tariff, provided the following figures
"An analysis of 1,257 tariffs in new cases between 1st April 1997 and 30th June 2002, indicated that 87 per cent of those were set in line with judicial recommendation. Of the remainder, the Secretary of State set a tariff higher than the judicial recommendations in 6 per cent of the cases, and a lower tariff in 7 per cent of the cases".—[Official Report, 19/2/03; col. WA 173.]
These figures clearly suggest that the Home Secretary considered the vast majority of tariffs to be adequate, clear and consistent.
The Home Secretary is now publicly maintaining that the judiciary are under-sentencing, and, in my view, he is acting in a grossly misleading fashion. He well knows that in proportion to its population, the United Kingdom has the highest prison population and imposes longer sentences than any other country in the European Union. He also knows that the number of lifers in England and Wales—4,800 in 2001—is equal to the whole of the European Union.
His new proposals could result in a 50 per cent increase in the lifer population. Most lifers now spend between eight and 14 years in prison, and if the starting point for lifers was increased to 15 years it could double the lifer population within a few years.
Mr Blunkett's figures impact not only on murder cases with a mandatory life sentence, but on other serious cases that must be kept in line so that the pattern of sentencing is consistent. Otherwise, public confidence will suffer.
He well knows that the overwhelming majority of murders are committed within families, kinship or friendship groups, and the perpetrators are unlikely to re-offend.
The crime of murder can be committed in such a wide variety of circumstances that it often presents a very difficult sentencing exercise. In Reyes v R, a judgment of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council given on 11th March 2002, the Privy Council stated
"It has however been recognised for very many years that the crime of murder embraces a range of offences of widely varying degrees of criminal culpability. It covers at one extreme the sadistic murder of a child for purposes of sexual gratification, a terrorist atrocity causing multiple deaths or a contract killing, at the other, the mercy killing of a loved one suffering unbearable pain in a terminal illness or a killing which results from an excessive response to a perceived threat". The Secretary of State contends that the public are deeply unhappy at the sentencing of very serious crimes. But he knows well, but conveniently overlooks, the gap that exists between reality and perception.
I refer, but only briefly because of time constraints, to the report of the British Crime Survey 2001.
"The BCS has demonstrated equally clearly, however, that at least in part, public dissatisfaction is grounded in ignorance of current practice, and in ignorance of current crime trends. Those who were most dissatisfied were most likely to overestimate the growth in crime and the degree to which crime is violent, underestimate the courts' use of imprisonment and underestimate the clear-up rate."
590
The report put the question,
"Out of every 100 men aged 21 or over who are convicted of rape (mugging/house burglary), how many do you think are sent to prison?"
The respondents overestimated not in rape, but in mugging by five per cent, and in burglary by eight per cent. They underestimated to a small degree in 26 per cent of rape cases, in 20 per cent of muggings and in 15 per cent of burglaries. In large underestimates, 57 per cent underestimated for rape, 62 per cent underestimated for mugging, and 55 per cent underestimated for burglary.
It is, I fear, an ironic situation that the Home Secretary should, as a result of the Cabinet reshuffle, be in a position to have in the Home Office, in due course at least, the major constituents of a ministry of justice.
There has passed to the Home Secretary, not to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor when he becomes the Minister for Constitutional Affairs, a far greater say in matters concerning the administration of justice. It is a worrying situation, that as and when our present Lord Chancellor leaves what is meant to be a temporary office, the prospect of justice being maintained will be significantly reduced.
6.48 p.m.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, the mark of a civilised society is the quality of its criminal justice system. Where, as we do now, we face a Criminal Justice Bill enormous in scope, it is our legislative duty to ensure that it meets the standards of a civilised society.
A couple of centuries ago, Edmund Burke pointed out that it is not for lawyers to make law, it should be based on the concepts of humanity, reason and justice. In examining the contents of this Bill, I doubt if any of us would disagree with those three benchmarks to determine its quality.
In the course of this Bill, I want to congratulate my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lady Scotland, friends both personally and legislatively. I thank my noble and learned friend for declining to continue in this Bill, as he might well have done, and I thank my noble friend for accepting what we call in our profession "a late return" of 14 chapters and 32 schedules with the aplomb to which we are accustomed. But she will appreciate that at this stage it is not fruitful to the House to spend time on the excellent parts of the Bill which we should welcome. It is an opportunity to identify those parts that cause us real concern.
It would be a particularly uninquiring mind that found itself in complete accord with 306 different clauses of a Bill of this size. Therefore, I hope that critical commentary will not be misunderstood. It is designed to improve this important legislation.
I do not regard the Bill as a party-political matter. There are differences of opinion within society as well as within the law about many of its provisions. I, for example, accept the justice of a variation of the double-jeopardy rule to accommodate the advance of modern science and to ensure that the guilty—and often the

591
dangerously guilty—are finally convicted if the evidence supports it. I particularly welcome the strengthening of bail controls. It is infuriating in ordinary society to see those on bail regularly committing further offences and receiving no consequentially hard penalty during the time of their bail.
However, I want to raise a cautious welcome, an expression of concern and, finally, a strong objection. First, the cautious welcome. Sentencing occupies a large part of the Bill. Sentencing and the criminal law and its procedural side finds itself uncomfortably placed in government between the beginning of the criminal justice process—policing—and the end—punishment. Those two extremes of the spectrum—policing and prisons—are the most expensive and the most difficult within which to legislate. Therefore, they are often the ones which governments tend to neglect in favour of the temptation to change criminal procedure and law. It is easier and less expensive and it is a temptation to which all governments in the past 20 years have annually given in. We have had a criminal justice Bill for almost every year of the past two decades.
This Criminal Justice Bill is different. The sentencing proposals are positive and I have three points to make about them. First, I request that if it is not in the Bill by way of ministerial commitment, the Government should carry out a results-based analysis of these new sentencing arrangements, annually or whatever is convenient. Secondly, they should estimate for us now the effect of the Bill upon the prison population. It is now more than 70,000. Prior to the Bill bring brought before Parliament, the estimate was that within five or six years it will rise to 100,000. What will this Bill do to that prison population? It is no satisfaction to victims to see a prison system in operation that serves no useful purpose in the rehabilitation of criminals.
My third point relates to the sentencing and guidelines council. For the moment I have an open mind about this for two reasons—one of principle and one of practice. While fully acknowledging the experience of the judiciary in sentencing, I do not see any principled reason why lay people should not be part of a sentencing guidelines council—provided, in principle, that they are not there to lobby for the Government or other sectoral interests, but are there as fair and objective-minded people to establish fair sentencing. The practical point is a very practical one. With such a guideline council, it would surely be extremely difficult for governments to assault us year after year with different criminal justice Bills about sentencing.
I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice, and his colleagues have taken that fully into consideration in their analysis of the council. For the moment, I have an open mind about it and therefore give sentencing a cautious welcome.
592
I turn to a serious concern; Part 11 of the Bill dealing with evidence. To call, as do the Explanatory Notes, for a new and inclusive approach to the evidence to be put to a jury gives me very great concern. Inclusive? It is not a legal concept of which I have ever heard. It is a piece of modern jargon which is ill-suited to the clarity with which we expect the criminal justice system to operate.
Let me ask two rhetorical questions. Supposing in a trial a juror personally concludes that the evidence does not satisfy him of guilt beyond reasonable doubt and what swings him in favour of a guilty verdict is the fact of a previous conviction. I know of no system of logic or fairness of justice to victims that can make that either fair or logically appropriate. I make exactly the same rhetorical question about hearsay. Multiple hearsay must inherently be multiply unreliable the further down the chain one goes.
The combination of a previous conviction, or convictions, and hearsay could be the factor that causes a miscarriage of justice. Victims must be given every consideration, but so must justice. I remind the House that it was only in 1994 that a Royal Commission on criminal justice, created because of a major problem with miscarriages of justice, made more than 350 recommendations to improve our system. If we look back on its report, I wonder whether we would find that Part 11 of the Bill easily sits in the context of avoiding miscarriages of justice. It is no satisfaction to the man or woman wrongly imprisoned to be told that it was all the result of an inclusive process. I therefore have great concern about Part 11. Reform the law, yes, but within reason and justice.
Finally, I pose a real objection. In this country we have, it is said—and I believe it to he so—a participatory democracy. Other than voting and paying our taxes, the only occasion on which we as citizens participate in the democracy is as a jury. If for centuries past we have employed the system. we should remind ourselves of why we have done it. First, citizens are doing justice as jurors. Secondly. they command the confidence of their fellow citizens. Thirdly, they are independent of the state. Fourthly, in my experience, as 12 good people and true they seek to exercise in a fair way their community common sense.
What is wrong with this system? Why should a person charged with serious fraud be told that if he wishes he can be tried by a judge? Why? I know of no reason of principle. It must be one of convenience. Any reasonable citizen going into a fraud trial these days would wonder what on earth was going on. The courtroom would be in a deluge of documentation. The indictment would probably run into 10, 15 or 20 counts. The simple would be made to seem complicated and the complicated incomprehensible. It is not the criminal law which is wrong, it is the system of conducting fraud trials which is wrong.
Why can we not give the financial services regulatory agency the same form of draconian powers that exist in the United States to deal with serious fraud? People within the world of finance are regulating those who do wrong within the world of

593
finance. Why should we undermine a major constitutional aspect of our country—jury trial —because of the inconvenience of serious fraud? I completely reject it. I know of no evidence that juries do not comprehend and if there is difficulty, it can be overcome to a large measure by having a simple offence of fraud based on dishonesty.
Secondly, why should a jury which has been the subject of an attempt at interference not continue as a jury? In the United States of America, which has a much more gun-ridden society than ours with much more violent crime and a much greater sophistication of organised crime, they have not abolished jury trial because of the risk to jurors from such criminals. They proclaim the value of this principle to be above and beyond the machinations of any such criminals. We should do the same. There is no evidence of which I am aware to show that this is such a serious problem as to require any reduction in the right to trial by jury.
Last of all, I refer to election by a defendant to be tried by a judge. I find this particularly unacceptable. Let me give two practical problems. Supposing somebody charged with the gravest of paedophilia offences chooses to be tried by a judge and is acquitted. What then of the national press's reaction to such a finding? What then of the independence of the judiciary? Supposing an alleged fraudster elects trial by a judge and there are millions involved in the pension fund and he is acquitted. What then serves the public? These are real questions of democratic import. In none of these areas does the right for trial by jury for serious criminal offences justify any derogation.
This country of ours exists on some very important traditions—traditions that bear the test of time. If you asked any citizen of this country which is one of those great traditions, I have no doubt the answer would be the jury trial. I strongly object to any reduction—as I have done before in this House—and ask the Government very carefully to consider this particular proposal.
This Bill is not the occasion, either within this House or without, for populist rhetoric. We have the advantage of two experienced and impressive Government Ministers conducting it before us. It is not a lawyers' payday. This is democracy in action. If we left this Chamber and talked to ordinary folk about what we do, I assure you that the criminal justice system is one of the few things they would understand and have an opinion about and in relation to which they expect us to protect them democratically. The criminal justice system is theirs, not ours. This Criminal Justice Bill has a great deal to commend it and in the days ahead, with the watchwords of "justice, reason and humanity", I hope we will produce a Bill that does obtain the confidence of the public.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Windlesham: My Lords, like others I should like to put on record my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on his appointment and to do so in a spirit of all-party amity. I extend that also to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, whose
594
work we have admired and which she has done so conscientiously for many years. Her promotion is well deserved and we congratulate her on that.
These tributes are not just a display of all-party amity, there is a more serious point behind them. I believe there is going to be an opportunity for the two Ministers just named to exercise a counterweight to the Home Secretary's influence. I do not wish to upset them by saying it is a malign influence, but influence it is on the process of justice. As regards Mr Blunkett's personality and his personal beliefs, he has strong individual powers of initiative, without consulting his colleagues, often without leaving time to do so. His influence is powerful and is not always in sympathy with values which are prevailing in this House, including, I believe, among some Ministers in this House itself.
In my own remarks I shall be brief. This is mainly because I shall be unable to attend the subsequent stages of the Bill owing to absence abroad. I will confine myself to one topic only and it is an important one. It is the essential role of victims and witnesses of crime in the criminal process.
Sometimes, but not always, the victim will be the principal witness, who typically may need help and support in the unfamiliar and formal—to many people forbidding—setting of a criminal trial. At other times, other witnesses will be third parties—nervous, ill at ease and reluctant sometimes to come forward to give the evidence which is crucial to a trial in the conventional, adversarial sense. Until Victim Support initiated the witness service in the Crown Court just on two decades ago, there was often nowhere separate for witnesses to sit and wait for the trial to begin, and no one to explain to them what was going on. All that has now changed, and this Bill contains a number of further significant improvements in the provision for victims and witnesses in all criminal courts. These are both welcome and timely.
They include the use of live video links in criminal proceedings so that witnesses can give evidence at a separate location where that it is necessary. There are further provisions to protect a witness from unfair challenges on their credibility as a witness. In cases where a witness might find it difficult to attend the court, there will be more provision for evidence to be given by video recording or in written statements. All of these changes will continue the important process of easing the position of certain witnesses in the court process.
Perhaps I may make a brief personal reference. I was the national president of Victim Support for nine years in the late 1990s until 2001. I was therefore personally involved in the early years of the establishment of the witness service in this country—partly as a result of having seen the provision made for victims at one of the early experiments in a criminal court at Brooklyn in the United States.
A generous funder, in the shape of a newly established charity looking for a good cause—that one golden opportunity that comes up every so often—made it possible for Victim Support to fund the early

595
stages of setting up a new, and subsequently very large, charitable organisation. Some Home Office officials at the time were interested. The enthusiastic personal support of the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Taylor of Gosforth, was invaluable, because it was he who ensured that victim and witness services could be established and given some house room in the Crown Courts.
One of our earliest Victim Support meetings took place in the Crown Court in Newcastle, with Lord Taylor, sadly, then very near the end of his life through ill health, presiding. By doing so he wanted to ensure that the service got off on the right foot. I see the current Lord Chief Justice nodding in assent. He may have been a High Court judge at the time. I was also present, and a tribute to Lord Taylor is well deserved.
From those small beginnings and under the inspirational leadership of Dame Helen Reeves, Victim Support has grown into a large national service, operating in every criminal court, including the huge undertaking of the magistrates' courts, to provide a service to witnesses. I learnt only this week that the Armed Forces have arranged for Victim Support to run witness services in the courts martial. Currently, there are about 4,000 trained volunteers working in the witness service.
I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, recognises those achievements. He is currently in discussion over Victim Support's great concern regarding the Government's current intention to devolve funding for victim and witness services to local criminal justice boards.
Noble Lords who have served in government, as I have, know that, inconveniently, it sometimes happens that good intentions are stated on public platforms but, on returning to the office, it is found that an aspect of policy, often involving money, appears to point in the opposite direction. We must hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, or his successors and Dame Helen Reeves will be able to reach an accommodation, because what is presently proposed will threaten the continued service of Victim Support in the criminal courts, which would be an undeserved disaster.
This is not the moment to pursue the issue further. but the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will have heard what I said. I believe that Dame Helen had been due to see the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, again shortly. She may well fetch up seeing the noble Baroness instead. I am confident that she will find a sympathetic ear and, I hope, a willingness to reconsider policy.
The Bill makes many references to the interests of victims and other interested parties, but they must be viewed in the context of delivery. It is the delivery of the service that matters, not the statement of good intent or good wishes. So I shall leave what is a serious issue—not simply one of funding, but of how volunteers can advance the interests of inarticulate people on their behalf in the courts—in the capable hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland.
7.15 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: My Lords. in an intervention previous to the debate. I described the Bill as monstrous. That was of course a slip of the tongue—although possibly a Freudian one. I meant to say that it was a truly monumental Bill, which it certainly is. Anyone who set out to comment on every part would be deservedly unpopular. I should like to say a word only about Part 7, concerning trials on indictment without a jury, Part 10, concerning retrial for serious offences and Part 12 concerning sentencing.
The use of jury trials for serious offences is traditional in this country and is no doubt accepted by the public as the natural order of things. It also has the real advantage of appearing actively to involve the population as a whole in the administration of justice. That relatively large sections of the public are excused jury service may not be widely appreciated. So long as the public perceive themselves as being involved, there is less risk of a "them and us" attitude developing.
It is sometimes said that the jury system provides a democratic safety valve, in that perverse verdicts can send a message to government. That is much overstated. Perverse verdicts in the case of food rationing offences and of drunk driving were the order of the day at one time. The attitude of jurymen was: if they were not doing it, their friends certainly were. That was why there were few convictions.
The Government indeed got the message, and changed the law, so that breach of food rationing regulations became an offence that could only be tried summarily and, on drink driving, they introduced the breathalyser offence, which, again, got rid of juries. In more recent times, attacks on nuclear submarines and GM crops have produced manifestly perverse verdicts, but no change in policy.
There is no evidence that juries get it right more often than other tribunals. On the basis of my experience, I have never known a jury to convict in circumstances in which, on the evidence before them, I had or have any doubts about the correctness of its verdict. I make no secret of the fact that that includes the Guildford and Woolwich bombings and the Maguire case, which I tried. That the convictions were subsequently quashed on the basis of matters of which the jury was ignorant is nothing to the point.
On the other hand, I have known a number of cases in which I was astonished that the jury should have acquitted. In one, they acquitted a man accused of arson in a factory. After the verdict was given, I was told by the police that that was his sixth consecutive acquittal. His luck ran out to some extent on the next occasion. He was convicted, but, unfortunately, an inexperienced probation officer told the court that it was his first offence, rather than that he had no previous convictions. As a result, he was given probation. I am bound to say that I rang up the chief probation officer to say, "For God's sake, do not let that man get anywhere near a factory". I hope that that was done.

597
Anyway, against that background, 1 really cannot get unduly excited at the proposal that if the nature of the case is such that trying it would impose an undue burden on the jury, or that its complexity is such that there may be a risk that the jury will wrongly acquit or wrongly convict, the trial shall be by a judge alone. Still less can I feel that all our liberties are at stake if, faced with evidence of jury tampering, a judge decides to try the case without a jury—subject, of course, in all those cases, to an overriding need to ensure in the exercise of the judge's discretion that the decision does not conflict with the interests of justice. I should add that my suggestion for the arsonist was that a new offence of being accident prone should be introduced. It was turned down by the authorities.
I turn to Part 10, "Retrial for serious offences". I accept that a verdict of not guilty should no longer be an absolute bar to a second trial in a very few serious cases. I have in mind the DNA cases—although not all DNA cases—but there may be other categories. I also have it well in mind that it may be impossible to achieve a fair retrial in some high-profile cases, in particular where the tabloid press has muddied the waters. However, the substitution of a verdict of guilty for a previous verdict of not guilty should be the sole prerogative of the jury and not something which depends even peripherally in part on a verdict by the Court of Appeal.
Paragraphs (a) and (c) of Clause 73(3) are intended to ensure that the Court of Appeal allows an application for a retrial only where the DPP consents to the application and—I stress this—as the Home Office briefing to Opposition Peers puts it,
"evidence emerges which strongly indicates that there is a cast iron case against an acquitted person for the offence for which he was acquitted".
Well, why bother with a jury? The Court of Appeal is to allow a retrial only if it is virtually sure of a conviction.
In order to avoid this highly prejudicial approach, in my judgment, Clause 72(3)(a) should read, "a jury could"—I stress the word—"regard the evidence as reliable", while paragraph (c) should read,
"in the context of the outstanding issues",
a jury might regard it as,
"highly probative of the case against the acquitted person".
This preserves the presumption of innocence, which should be even stronger on a retrial where there is no criticism of the original acquittal.
Consistent with my contention that the not guilty verdict should stand unless or until it is superseded by a verdict of guilty by the new jury, I have to ask why the Court of Appeal is expected to quash an acquittal ordered in proceedings in England and Wales, yet can content itself with declaring that an acquittal elsewhere in the United Kingdom is not a bar to a retrial. The whole object of the application in both cases is to displace the bar on a retrial. If that can be achieved by a simple declaration, why should it not be left to the jury to quash the original not guilty verdict if the retrial ends in conviction?
598
Lastly, I turn to Part 12, "Sentencing". Detailed criticisms have been made and will hereafter be advanced by others. Today we have had the privilege of hearing from my noble and learned friend the Lord Chief Justice. We shall be able to read his more detailed criticisms in the Library. My concern is with what 1 conceive to be a total misunderstanding by the Government generally and the Home Secretary in particular of what is the place of the judiciary in our unwritten constitution.
In theory, there should be a separation of powers between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. At present, such is the majority of the governing party in another place that there is no real separation of powers between the executive and the legislature. That makes it all the more important that we maintain the separation between the judiciary and the executive. For in present circumstances it is only the judiciary which can stand up and be counted in defence of the rights of individual citizens.
In times gone by, Parliament fixed the maximum sentence for any given offence. In deciding upon the appropriate sentences, the judges looked at all the circumstances of the particular offence, and looked at all the circumstances of the particular offender. They then decided where that all came on the scale between the virtually excusable version of the offence and the worst possible offence, which Parliament must have had in mind when it fixed the maximum penalty. It was not an easy exercise, but it was very straightforward.
However, this Bill devotes 150 clauses and a whole schedule to telling judges how to perform that task. I must ask why. The answer is plain. The Home Secretary thinks that Parliament is omnipotent and can dictate to the judges, in detail, how they should perform their constitutional duties. Indeed, in the context of mandatory life sentences, Schedule 17 assumes that the judges are mere bean counters: think of a starting point for the minimum time which the accused should stay in prison, and then add or subtract in accordance with what are virtually statutory formulae.
Parliament can limit the powers of the judges. Sometimes it does so, while judges and others think that they should have the freedom to impose longer sentences. But it can exercise its power and I have no problem with that. Parliament can go further and indicate its view of what should be the appropriate sentence for the "normal" kind of offence, if there is such a thing. What it cannot do, either directly or through guideline-making bodies, is dictate what shall be the appropriate sentence in individual cases, the circumstances of which are infinitely variable.
It is true that from time to time the Bill suggests that judges may use their own judgment in exceptional cases, which suggests a kind of constitutional genuflection, but it is clear that the intention is for judges to have the minimum possible discretion on any aspect of sentencing. "Big Brother", otherwise known as the Home Office, knows best.
It used not to be like this. In 1967, as a very new judge, I was due to hear an application for bail made by a famous entertainer, whom I shall not identify

599
further, charged with serious drug offences. It was clear that it was going to be a high-profile case. I asked the then Lord Chief Justice, Lord Parker of Waddington, what was his policy in such cases. In those days the word "policy" was used rather than "guidelines", but the idea was the same. His answer to me was a succinct: "I do not give bail in any such case". That was clear enough. I heard the application and, for reasons which no longer matter, I decided that his policy did not fit the facts of the case, and granted bail. I went back to the Lord Chief Justice to confess my sins, saying that I was terribly sorry, but that I did not think his policy was correct in this case. I have never forgotten his answer, which was: "John, think nothing of it. That is what you are paid to do". I do not think that the Home Secretary would appreciate that.
No judge is accountable to any other judge; that is fundamental, but is not realised by a number of people. When I took up the work of president of the National Industrial Relations Court, I was asked by a distinguished Cabinet Minister, who is now a Member of this House, whether I was accountable to the Lord Chief Justice. I replied that I was not. He went on to ask, "Are you accountable to the Lord Chancellor?", to which I answered, "No, I am sorry, but I am accountable only to myself, my conscience and the law". That is the case for all judges.
I trust that the Home Secretary will take note of this limited but absolutely essential accountability, which is based on the judge's oath to,
"do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will".
I trust, too, that the Government will never create a situation in which the "laws of this Realm" conflict with doing "right to all manner of people". The rigidity and prescriptive nature of this Bill in the context of sentencing suggest that the Government may be unaware of the danger. If it does create such a situation, the judges will need to draw a clear distinction between what Parliament says that they must not do, which of course they will observe, and what it says that they must do, which would be a different matter. Parliament can prohibit action, but it cannot require judges to take action which, in their view, is contrary to their duty to "do right to all manner of people". It is upon this fundamental distinction that freedom under the law depends.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I congratulate my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and my noble friend Lady Scotland on their new appointments.
For most of my working life as a police officer at the sharp end, I was often amused, bemused and confused by the English legal system. I say "English" because the Scottish system is different, being based on Roman law. I was even driven to study law and eventually obtained a law degree at London University.
I remember many years ago when I was a youngster—in the 1950s, I think—a man called Stanley Setty being murdered. His body was never
600
found but his murderer was. He was a chap called Donald Hume. He appeared at the Assize Court, where he was acquitted by a jury. Imagine my surprise when, some time later, I read in a Sunday tabloid an account by Donald Hume of how he had murdered Stanley Setty, chopped his body into manageable pieces, chartered a light aircraft and dropped the body parts into the North Sea, to the delight, no doubt, of the fishes below.
I have little doubt that Hume was paid for that "scoop" and it certainly made very interesting reading. What I could not understand as a small boy, however, was why his detailed admissions could not be used as evidence of his guilt. I had not heard of the legal phrase "autrefois acquit", which means that once a defendant has been acquitted by a jury he cannot be re-tried for the same offence. I believed then that that rule was a nonsense and I believe it even more now.
It may well have had some validity in ancient times when we had the death penalty and torture, when the accused was not represented and when there were few legal safeguards. We continually hear of the importance of putting right miscarriages of justice. In my judgment, it is no less a miscarriage for an accused to be wrongly acquitted than it is for an accused to be wrongly convicted. Justice demands, if it is at all possible, that both kinds of miscarriages of justice should be put right, with proper safeguards.
Then we had the more recent case of Julie Hogg, who was murdered on Teesside by Billy Dunlop and discovered hidden behind the bath by her mother, Anne Ming. Dunlop was acquitted at his trial but later admitted the offence and could be tried only for perjury.
I declare an interest. As the newly-elected president of the Superintendents' Association back in 1997, I called then for the abolition of the double jeopardy rule for the very reasons I have just given. That was strongly opposed then by the legal profession. After I retired from the police, along came the Stephen Lawrence case and the report which recommended such a change; as did Lord Justice Auld's review of the criminal courts; as did the Home Affairs Select Committee so ably led by my noble friend Lord Corbett of Castle Vale. It was also recommended by the Law Commission.
So the proposals in the Bill have powerful support. They are an important step in rebalancing the criminal justice system which, over the years, has leant over backwards to safeguard the accused—I have no quarrel with that—without having due regard to the rights and liberties of the victims of crime and the need to see justice done.
The police fully support the new provisions—not because they will give them several bites at the cherry but because there are several recent cases out there now which leave police officers extremely frustrated at knowing there is new and compelling evidence and yet, because of this ancient rule, they have to leave justice undone.

601
There is no question of the new arrangements being abused as important safeguards are built into the Bill. The personal consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required; the Court of Appeal will have to be satisfied that there is new and compelling evidence and that a re-trial is in the interests of justice; and only one re-trial will he allowed.
I have little doubt that members of the public support such a change. It is one of the necessary building blocks in the modernisation of our criminal justice system. I ask my noble and learned friend one important question: will the provision be retrospective to enable justice to be done in old cases where new compelling evidence comes to light through modern scientific methods? The relatives of many victims certainly hope so.
I have mentioned in your Lordships' House previously the case of Ian Carr, who, on New Year's Eve, crashed a stolen car into the car of the Sawyer family in Northumberland, killing little Rebecca Sawyer, aged six years, and seriously injuring her baby sister, who was thrown out of the car. Not only did Carr callously flee the scene but he was disqualified for life. He had never held a driving licence and had 89 previous convictions, one of which, tellingly, was for causing death by dangerous driving. On that occasion his 16 year-old friend died and, again, Carr callously fled the scene.
The judge in the trial complained of the limited sentencing powers in such a case. As a direct result, I made representations personally to the Home Secretary for sentencing provisions which would allow the courts to do justice. I am delighted to see that the Bill now contains such provisions. Not only does it raise the maximum sentence from 10 to 14 years, it also provides in serious cases, including causing death by dangerous driving, for the imposition in certain circumstances of an indeterminate sentence or, as the Bill calls it, imprisonment for public protection.
This means that where a serial killer such as Ian Carr shows any indication of re-offending, such as driving while disqualified or stealing cars, his licence can be revoked and he can be taken back into custody before he kills another innocent victim. This is another building block in the modernisation of the criminal justice system and again it is strongly supported by the police and the judiciary.
While I am dealing with homicide, I should say that I am against capital punishment for two reasons: the risk of wrongful conviction and the reluctance of juries to convict. Having said that, I believe that when capital punishment for murder was abolished in 1965 there was a contract made whereby politicians undertook that where murderers were a danger to the public a life sentence would mean life. In my view, that debt has not been honoured.
When I was doing research for the debate I was astonished to find that, between 1997 and 1999, 900 serious offences, including rape and murder, were committed by criminals who were under the supervision of the probation service. That is 900 victims. In 1998, five murders and five rapes were
602
being committed every month by supervised offenders, a rise of 25 per cent on the previous year. That is 60 murders which would not have been committed if the perpetrators had been in prison. In the 10 years from 1989 to 1999, 41 murders were committed by offenders previously convicted of homicide. Again, that is 41 men, women and children who would still be alive if the perpetrator had been incarcerated.
There is a tendency in your Lordships' House to discuss these important issues with a lofty detachment from the real world. I spent 35 years picking up the pieces in the real world and I can tell your Lordships that these issues do matter to ordinary people. In my view, this House and another place have a critical responsibility—nay, a duty—to protect their citizens from the most serious of all crimes, murder.
Unlike many other countries, our constitution is unwritten and Parliament is sovereign. There are numerous examples of Parliament legislating to change the common law developed by the judiciary. That is exactly what is happening here. Parliament is setting out limits under which judges will operate. It is not a case of the Home Secretary taking on the judges; it is Parliament carrying out the democratic will of the people of this country.
I have no doubt that we shall hear accusations of populism—indeed we have done so—as though doing what the majority of our citizens demand is somehow demeaning. "Judges know best" is the cry. You tell that to the man in the street. People are crying out for justice. Experience tells us that, good as the judiciary is—I have a great deal of respect for the judiciary—it does not always know best.
Multiple murders, terrorists, child and sadistic killers should stay inside for the whole of their lives. Offences of murder of police officers, prison officers and witnesses, and those involving the use of firearms or guns, should attract a starting point of 30 years. Fifteen years is a reasonable minimum starting point for the remainder of offenders who commit the foul deed of murder.
By a 78 per cent majority, the police have just voted to remain unarmed on normal patrol. I and they therefore welcome the imposition of a five-year minimum sentence for carrying a firearm in a public place, to deter people from, as has been mentioned, carrying firearms often as fashion accessories. That proposed minimum sentence should prove to be a useful deterrent.
I could mention many other provisions. Alas, however, time does not permit me to do so. The aim of the Bill is to rebalance the criminal justice system in favour of the only non-voluntary participant in it—the victim of crime. In that objective, it has my full support.
7.41 p.m.
Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, I begin by offering my personal congratulations to the noble Baroness and to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thorot on, on their new positions.

603
The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, told the noble Baroness that it was like taking a rather large, late return. I have no doubt that she will have much time to mug it up, if we are to have one meeting only of the Committee before the Recess. I am sure that she will listen with care to all the arguments that are put to her during that time.
As other noble Lords have said, the Bill is both complicated and detailed. I shall confine my remarks to three issues: the abolition of trial by jury; evidence of bad character; and the sentencing proposals. However, before I begin, I should tell the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, that I listened with great interest to his speech. Although I am sure that he would not necessarily expect me to agree with everything that he said, I totally agree with him as far as concerns double jeopardy. If there is new and compelling evidence, which was not available at the time of the original trial, I have never understood why a person should not be retried upon it. With regard to the three matters about which I propose to address your Lordships' House, much has already been said on juries by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, and much has been said by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, on sentencing, with which I agree. I hope that that may further shorten my contribution.
As we all know, the right to trial by jury has been a fundamental right of people charged with serious offences in this country. I believe that it should remain a fundamental right. As the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said, a jury represents the public's participation in the criminal justice system. Juries are respected and regarded as wholly independent. Their decisions are accepted and relied on by the public in a way that I am not sure would necessarily apply to decisions made by a judge alone. Juries are generally accepted as being the best forum for findings of fact, applying, as they do, their knowledge of every-day life to the issues that they have to consider.
I am against all three changes proposed by the Bill. I do not consider it desirable that an individual defendant should be able to choose the mode of trial that he perceives to be in his best interest. I believe that the mode of trial should be similar for all serious offenders.
I deal next with the proposal concerning long and complex cases. Although I appreciate that the Government are entitled to say that it was recommended by the Roskill committee, and perhaps even at an earlier stage by the James committee, I do not believe that the case for it has been made out. I say that for two reasons. First, ultimately, the issue at the heart of long and complex trials is usually whether the accused person was acting honestly or dishonestly. I believe that a jury is the best judge of dishonesty in those circumstances. In addition, with a conviction rate of over 80 per cent in cases of serious fraud, the Government have produced no evidence to show that the present system does not work. I am, therefore, equally opposed to that change.
604
In conclusion, I turn to the proposed change regarding tampering with jurors. I do not believe that an individual's right to trial by jury should be refused on the basis of what may happen rather than on what has happened. It seems to me that the allegation that there is a real danger that a jury may be tampered with could be advanced with competence by a prosecution in almost every major drugs case in this country at the moment.
I ask two specific questions. First, what would be the position in a case involving more than one defendant, as is usual, where it is believed that the threat to tamper has come from only one? Secondly, if a judge makes a decision based on what he has been told in an in-camera hearing—namely, that there is real evidence of tampering—who is then to try that case? Conscious of that evidence, would that judge be able to try that case? Alternatively, should it be tried by another judge who is aware that the case is being tried by a judge because a previous judge was satisfied that such a risk may arise? I believe that we should leave the right to jury trial as it exists today. The proposed erosions would have a great effect on the number of trials ultimately not tried by a jury, which, to our regret, would grow over the years.
I turn to my comments on the issue of widening the scope of evidence to include previous convictions. In practice, I believe that the provision of evidence of a person's previous convictions is thoroughly dangerous, unless it is clear that that evidence is wholly relevant to the matter for which he is being tried. The knowledge of what he has done in the past, rather than the evidence of what is said against him at that moment, is likely to lead to unfairness and wrongful convictions.
Under existing law, a defendant's character can be put in if he chooses to advance evidence of his character or to attack the evidence of another. Under existing law, evidence of similar fact can be put in where the probative value of that which is now said against him and the evidence of similar previous facts is such that a jury should hear it. To widen that further, if evidence of a previous conviction were to be advanced at any time on the basis of almost a presumption, that would lead to people being tried on their records, not on the event. It would be persuasive, powerful evidence; but, equally, it would be dangerous evidence.
I turn to comments on sentencing. As I said, I agree with—and shall adopt, if I may—a great deal of what the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, said. With regard to sentences of up to 12 years' imprisonment, I welcome the attempt to provide effective alternatives to imprisonment. I welcome the attempt to restore the principle of the suspended sentence.
I welcome also the statement that prison should be used only if any other penalty is insufficient. Similarly, I welcome the statement that time spent in prison, when applicable, should be as short as possible. These proposals are, I believe, admirable. Prisons today are desperately overcrowded. The chance or rehabilitation or reform, which must be one of the aims of the Prison Service, is therefore accordingly reduced.

605
It is not the aims of the Bill with which I disagree; I do not believe that they will be achieved in practice. If we look at the provisions, consider what the noble Baroness said, and add to that the proposals on sentencing for more serious offences, the effect as a whole will he to increase the prison population enormously rather than reduce it.
I remind the noble Baroness that the Parole Review Committee, which I had the honour to chair, was set up by the then Home Secretary because of a loss of confidence in the parole system based on two matters. First, there was the wide difference between the sentences passed and the sentences served. Secondly, as regards offences at the lower end, people who were given different sentences came out at the same time. You could not differentiate between the criminality of the individual defendant.
In this complex system, as I understand it, there is a real danger that the present proposals for sentences of less than 12 months would give rise to the same concerns that led to the setting up of the Parole Review Committee and led us to recommend what we believed was a simple, realistic and proportional basis—namely, that everyone should serve 50 per cent of the sentence that was passed.
My second point is that I do not believe that the resources will be made available. It is right that we did not suggest licence for those serving sentences of less than 12 months, and that that is not in the present system. The reason was the effect on resources at that time. It is difficult to believe that the resources will he made available to carry out these proposals. I hope that I am wrong, but I fear that I may be right.
Finally, as far as concerns the sentencing for specified offences, I agree wholeheartedly with what was said so eloquently by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson. I believe such proposals represent a gross restriction on the power of the trial judge to pass what he believes to be the right sentence, having heard all the evidence.
The duty to sentence is the duty of the court, having heard all the evidence within the framework laid down by Parliament. It is not Parliament's duty to attempt to impose the individual sentence. Moreover, when a sentence is given, it should, as far as possible, be given in open court so that the individual knows the effects of that sentence and the public is aware of it. If I understand the proposals in this Bill correctly, they will lead to an enormous increase in indeterminate sentences, which will mean that the clarity of the sentence and the ability of the judge to specify the duration of the sentence will be reduced. I believe that the same arguments apply against the proposals as regards murder.
Basically, the Bill is an attempt to produce mandatory minimum sentences in a way that I believe is unacceptable. I hope that we shall have the opportunity to discuss all these matters in the Bill's Committee stage.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Mallalieu: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his new appointment and also on his expedition. It is quite something to outline a major government Bill of 374 pages at the rate of 26 pages a minute, which he did. I also congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. Many of us will be greatly reassured that she is in her place on this Bill, because we know her to be a strong and doughty defender of a strong and independent Bar and an independent judiciary. We look to her for some assistance in those areas that worry us greatly.
As someone who has practised at the criminal Bar for some 30 years—largely defending, in recent years—I have been very saddened by what has been going on in the last year or so, particularly in the last few months. It seems to me that the criminal justice system has become a political Dutch auction, each side making more and more sweeping promises for change to secure longer sentences and more convictions, with the danger of the presumption of innocence, the right to trial by jury and fairness itself at risk of being the losers.
I am not complacent as a result of my personal experiences and I am not here to speak in a trade union role for others in my position. I can see that there is an enormous amount that could and must be improved in the way our criminal justice system works.
We are told that the purpose of the Bill is to improve public confidence in the judicial system. I think it right to pause for a moment to look at what, I believe, the public want from a criminal justice system. They want to know that when it occurs a crime will be fully and properly investigated, and that those who are on the receiving end will have full information about progress and the decisions taken. Victims, witnesses, jurors and those who are accused do not want to be messed about waiting for a trial to take place, or at court when giving evidence or through being brought back to court over and over again because of adjournments.
If the accused is acquitted, those concerned need to know why. They need to know that it was not simply a technicality that led to the acquittal, when there was plain evidence of guilt, or that there had been lack of proper investigation. They need to know that it was the result of a fair assessment of the evidence on both sides. If the accused is convicted, the public need to know that the accused will receive a sentence which is just, in the circumstances of the case, and, where necessary, protects the public in the future. In many areas the Bill achieves that, which is beneficial. I hope that my noble friend will forgive me if I leave those to be dwelt on in detail in the long hours of September, October and November.
If I seem negative, it is because the matters I raise now are the ones which trouble me, as they do other noble Lords. I agree with every word that the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, said about the erosion of trial by jury. The pressure for this change does not come from a public who have lost confidence in that system. Far from it. Because the jury is random, it has the

607
confidence of the public that it is independent. Who better than the general public, with collective wisdom on a jury, to act as the best judges of what is right and what is wrong?
In this country we try really serious crime with a judge and jury, not just historically, but because it works. All forms of deciding guilt or innocence are, in a sense, a blunt instrument. I know that very well, having sat, as others in this House have done, with people awaiting a jury verdict on a murder trial and knowing full well that the verdict could easily go one way as another and that the person sitting with you may be going home or starting a life sentence. But juries, I believe, get it right more often than any other system is likely to. That is my view, and I believe it is the public's view.
If it is the view of those in government that jury trial is inconvenient, too costly, or—in the dreadful phrase we hear so often—poor value for money, too slow or likely to lead to too many acquittals, let them say so and let us have a proper debate about the removal of juries altogether. I do not believe that we are having that debate. The Government know that it would be vastly unpopular and dare not do it yet. Instead, the proposal is to chip away at the edges. The chipping is to be done on fraud trials. I pause to say that I was interested in the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, but my personal experience is that a vast amount could be done, not just to simplify but to shorten fraud trials if there were proper efforts made at timetabling by judges in control of the cases and by prosecutors themselves.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, with whom I disagree on other aspects of his speech, said, "Trust the jury". My experience is that juries are the best possible people to determine whether or not others have acted dishonestly. One proposal is to chip away at cases in which a jury might be "got at", when, although the noble Lord, Lord Harris, referred to the cost, we already have ways of dealing with just such cases and do so effectively. We move trials, often to London, which, by the noble Lord's authority is placed with the Bill. We move the location. We screen the jury from the public gallery. We have separate entrances for them, and, where necessary, we have jury protection. We often achieve verdicts of not guilty or guilty based on the evidence.
We are also told that a defendant possibly could choose the mode of trial in serious cases. That would be bound to lead to a two tier system in which a jury might well wonder why the defendant had not wanted to be tried by a trained lawyer. A judge, however great his experience and however judicial or dispassionate he was able to be, could not fail to be affected in a high profile case by the mass of publicity. The decision on guilt or innocence would depend solely on his judgment, not just on the law, but on the facts themselves. We should continue to try serious crime with a judge and jury, but we should look for additional and better ways of managing cases. There is vast scope for improvement.
608
I am concerned about the proposal for retrial in serious offences. No one likes the idea of a criminal "getting away with it". However, I am concerned at provisions being sold to the public and this House—for example, developments of science—which enable there to be proof where there was none at the time of trial and providing scope for the matter being retried. New and compelling evidence, when one looks at the Bill, is simply that which was not adduced in the proceedings at which the person was acquitted. I pause to ask whether that includes material that was available but where a judge ruled it should not be adduced in the original trial. In almost every major criminal trial a judge is asked to rule on the admissibility of some part of the evidence. If that means that where that evidence has not been allowed to be used, there is a ready-made ground for an application for a fresh trial we are going to see few criminal trials in which the judge's ruling cannot form the basis for such an application.
I am also concerned over what that new and compelling evidence might be, if it is something less than the new scientific forensic evidence. Will it include cell confessions, for example? They feature in all too many criminal trials, are often the basis of convictions, occur often while someone is in custody on remand and contain all the dangers of a witness who has an axe of his own to grind and is often hoping for bail, help with his own sentence or trial. Although I have heard it said that the provision would have no adverse effect for anyone except the guilty, that is not right. Anyone acquitted of a serious criminal offence would for life be at risk from attention seekers or from someone with real malice towards him based on a false allegation that he had subsequently admitted that he committed the offence.
I can see that there is an argument for a change in the law but I am unhappy with the present proposition. None of that is any substitute for proper investigation in the first place. I am concerned that in a number of high profile cases already members of prosecuting authorities have been indicating that they will propose the reopening of trials. The danger of prosecuting authorities who have been criticised having another go, unless the provisions are tied extremely tightly, will be almost overwhelming.
I am concerned about the proposed changes on disclosure. They are not a level playing field. There is a requirement that the defence disclose far more than the prosecution in relation to how they propose to conduct the trial and about the witnesses they either have investigated, spoken to or obtained statements from but do not intend to call.
I am concerned about the evidence of bad character and hearsay evidence. Changes need to be made, but in each case the leave of a judge should be required, and in each case the evidence should be relevant before being admitted.
I am concerned about the sentencing provisions, in particular the proposed changes in relation to murder trial sentencing. For a fair sentence a judge must be able to make the punishment fit the crime and the

609
defendant. Sentencing cannot be carried out in the Home Office or in the newspapers. It can only be carried out by someone who has heard all the evidence and seen those involved. In rebalancing the criminal justice system, which is what we have repeatedly been told the Bill is about, we have to be careful not to tilt the scales of justice so that those who should not be convicted are convicted. There could be nothing more calculated to undermine public confidence in the system, and some of the Bill's measures I fear could do just that.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I, too, should like to begin by very warmly congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on her promotion. We know that in the course of the long Committee stage to which we all look forward she will deal with this Bill with high intellect, considerable toughness and a most dangerous degree of charm. We all look forward to further demonstrations of that combination. I think that she is probably already learning, if she has not learned it already, that on the Treasury Bench the sharpest darts come from behind her.
I agree with every word that has been said by the noble Lord. Lord Brennan, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, who has just sat down. I should like to endorse the noble Lord's comment that although there is indeed much that is admirable in the Bill, it would be a waste of an opportunity to focus on that when there are plenty of provisions that are a good deal less admirable. Now is our chance to indicate those areas of concern to which we shall certainly be returning in Committee. I very warmly welcome what was said by my noble friend Lady Anelay on the Front Bench about those areas of concern.
My first criticism of the Bill is not that the Government are legislating once again. We all know that they are taking their place in a long procession that has wound its way since the war. I remember taking part in a Criminal Justice Bill myself in 1981 when I was in the Home Office. I do not criticise at all the Government for legislating again. It is perfectly apparent—if only from the statistics cited by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice at the beginning of his most remarkable speech—that there is still something very wrong indeed in the field of criminality and the steps that we take to counter it.
My criticism is not that the Government are legislating again; it is this. For all its portmanteau dimensions, this latest Bill contains much important stuff that has been packed in haste, flung in at the last minute and not selected with care. No fewer than 35 clauses and six schedules were added in the course of progress in another place, most on them on Report. The Government's guillotine secured that two groups of government amendments, including four new clauses and two schedules, received no examination whatever. Even so, we are told that there are yet further future provisions that did not get packed at all and which we can expect to arrive in a separate parcel.
610
I am sorry to sound rather heavy about this, but it is a point that has scarcely featured so far in our discussion of the Bill. I do not think that our increasing familiarity with this kind of treatment, so far as legislation that comes here is concerned, ought to dull our instinct to protest. Mine is not dulled anyway. Once again this unelected House will be obliged to do, and I am certain will do, what the elected House ought to have done already.
What an irony it is that so much of the Bill is intended by the Home Secretary to reflect what is said to be wanted by so-called ordinary people. What an irony it is that the people by whom another place is elected are not in some important respects any longer to be represented in the procedure by which criminal trials are conducted. I think that that is an extraordinary irony. We shall need a long time in Committee to deal with the work that another place should have done. I think that we ought to he able to trust that we shall get it.
On the Second Reading of such a portmanteau Bill one can make only a piecemeal contribution. Mine will move now from an irony to what I consider a paradox. Here is a Home Secretary who puts his faith in the judgment of ordinary people and proclaims so intemperately his lack of faith in the discernment of the judiciary, but who is trying here to cut back the right to trial by jury in favour of trial by judge alone. I must be fair—he has dropped for the moment his plans to deny that right to people like the harassed but innocent housewife charged with shoplifting from a supermarket. Who could say that she might not reasonably reckon that by 12 ordinary folk her innocence might be more readily recognised than by perhaps case-hardened magistrates? But Part 7 makes specific inroads on the right to jury trial on indictment. which in my view are dangerous and unnecessary. Partly they are dangerous because they are unnecessary. Part 7 does that in favour not even of trial by a judge sitting with lay assessors, as Auld recommended.
The point has been made, but it is worth making again. What will happen when a City tycoon is tried by a judge alone and acquitted of serious and complex fraud? What can we expect to hear from the Home Secretary in those circumstances about the limitations of the judiciary and their inadequate personal backgrounds, however they may by then be appointed? Will public confidence in the acquittal be as secure as it would be if a jury had heard the case? I do not believe that it could be.
In proceeding down this road the Home Secretary is acting in the teeth of what the polls have shown. that so-called ordinary people want to keep their rights to jury trial undiminished. That point has been well made by other noble Lords. If these provisions carry, I confidently expect that in the next criminal justice Bill, say in 12 months or so, the harassed housewife will find herself back in the frame again and many more as well.
I recognise, of course, that with the present Government, it is idle to pray in aid the long history of any institution or a constitutional right. As far as

611
constitutional matters are concerned, that is a red rag to their bull in a china shop. But they ought not to be indifferent, surely, to the claims of democracy, and the involvement of the community in the criminal justice system. Have they forgotten how, for example, a jury can be a bulwark against legislation that ordinary people think is oppressively widely drawn? I for one have not; and it led us some years ago in one instance to reform the Official Secrets Act, belatedly and beneficially.
As the Bar Council says:
"Clause 42 represents erosion of jury trial on grounds of expediency. Neither length nor complexity constitutes a proper justification for this erosion. There is no evidence to suggest that juries do not follow serious fraud cases".
I hope that the Home Secretary will no longer claim that this is the Bar Council going in for special pleading in its profession's own interests. I do not see how that can be argued seriously, but if it were it would chime pretty oddly with the Bar Council's opposition to retrials after acquittal, when fresh evidence has come to the knowledge of the prosecution.
All those matters have to be argued on their merits in Committee. To go into ever more detail on the provisions of the Bill would be to make a Committee speech and would weary your Lordships excessively. I warmly welcome the indications given by my noble friend of the areas that we shall consider.
For my part I am astonished that before the Sentencing Advisory Council has even been hatched its pinions are due to be clipped. The imposition of statutory starting points for the calculation of sentences for murders is at best premature. And given the lack of premeditation of most murders and their domestic character and their hugely varying culpability, I believe that 15 years is much to high for the lowest starting point.
I have had the advantage of looking at the paper that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice placed in the Library and to which he referred in his speech. It is absolutely astonishing that having consulted with the Home Secretary, the Lord Chancellor and the Attorney-General about a draft practice direction that he had prepared—I refer to paragraph 47 of the paper—and having found that they had accepted that draft, apart from some minor matters, one reads at paragraph 54 that:
"The minimum periods now proposed in the CJB (schedule 17) are substantially higher than those contained in the practice direction".
He goes on to say in paragraph 56:
"As far as I am aware, the new figures were not based on any advice from the Sentencing Advisory Panel. They were not the subject of any public consultation. They involved massive increases in relation to those who are now to receive a period of 30 years (equivalent to an increase of 30 years over the figure that previously applied)".
The Lord Chief Justice says in paragraph 57:
"Furthermore, the figures are out of proportion with other sentences for serious crimes, for example, crimes involving importation of drugs which can cause huge damage to the public.
612
If these figures are enacted, then they are bound to result in a substantial increase in sentencing in relation to crimes overall and distort the task of the Sentencing Council before it is established".
In a remarkable paragraph, paragraph 58, he says:
"These figures can only be explained as representing a political judgment. They demonstrate the consequences of the involvement of politics in sentencing".
I ask the noble Baroness why those provisions were inserted at Report stage and on what grounds were they put in.
I conclude by saying that it is a shame that a Bill which contains much that is admirable should contain seriously damaging provisions. Evidence of bad character, the rule against hearsay evidence and the enlargement of the power of the police to detain without charge are among the areas on which I disagree with the Bill, but I shall not step into them today. It is enough to say that in my view the Government's proposals are too seriously prosecution-minded, at the expense of safeguards for the ordinary person prosecuted by the state that have proved their value over many years and are needed no less today.
I hope that your Lordships' House will preserve them.
8.20 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Scotland and my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer heartily on what they have achieved. They have both been very efficient, but very friendly. I thank them for that.
I agree largely with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, not for the first time. Apart from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, we are the only solicitors to speak in the debate. That does not mean that the others ought to be disqualified, although there may be something in that.
Although parts of the Bill improve the law, I am rather disturbed, as is the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, by other provisions—provisions which deeply concern the judiciary as well. My views alone would be unimportant, but they stem from authoritative sources: the Bar Council; the Law Society; Justice; the Legal Action Group; Liberty. In an open letter, Justice has this to say in reference to the government amendments:
"These are not emergency amendments. They could easily have been introduced earlier in the legislative process or during the consultation beforehand, allowing time for proper scrutiny".
All these bodies were deeply concerned that the Government—my Government—were suddenly galvanised into action, giving no adequate opportunity for their new approach to be properly considered and invigilated by the House of Commons. The fears to which I have referred have not been allayed. They, and I, want a Bill that is firm and fair. Trials ought not to be prejudiced by some of the methods prescribed. I welcome the Lord Chancellor's offer to be open-minded about improving the Bill. The trouble is that that is precisely what the Home

613
Secretary said in another place—and of course he did not. Therefore, we look to my noble friend and my noble and learned friend to remedy that situation.
To remove juries in allegedly complex cases supposedly too complex for them is utterly wrong. I agree with those in another place that what the Government are prescribing could end with the abolition of jury trials altogether. That may not be their present intention—but it remains a real risk.
Juries, unlike judges, are not inclined to be either pro-prosecution or pro-defence. They have not heard similar cases before. They have not become casehardened. They, all 12 of them, consider the evidence together. In that way, prejudices can be ironed out. Let us consider specifically long, complex fraud cases. Both Roskill and Auld in their committees recommended that the judge, assisted by lay assessors, should adjudicate in such cases. That, in my view, is to deny the validity of the jury system altogether. In other words, what we are going to have now is a new system, a system of trial by lawyer and experts, and all because, so it is alleged, complex fraud is too unintelligible to the public; only the experts can understand the subject matter.
Surely, in the main, what these complex cases boil down to is whether the defendant has behaved, or had the intention of behaving, dishonestly. This is the system that has endured over many years. On the whole it has not been found wanting. Since long gaol terms follow the finding of guilt, those who are charged are entitled to be tried, in my view, in the same way as other defendants. It is incumbent on my noble friend the Minister to show that it is manifestly established that juries acquit in such cases because they are unable to comprehend complex evidence. In my view, up until this stage, the Minister has not done precisely that.
Then I come to the danger of jury tampering. Yes, it does occur but I think it is in a tiny minority of cases. If I am wrong about that I am sure the Minister will come forward with strong evidence to rebut what I have said. What the Bill says in Clause 43 is that there is a -real and present danger" of jury tampering by the defendant, his family or by his associates. How is that to be proved? What happens to a co-accused against whom no evidence of jury tampering has been established? Will that defendant lose his or her rights to jury trial? I must say that in some 30 years in the practice of criminal litigation I never came across any such alleged tampering, save in one case where in the Lord Mayor's Court it was established that there was absolutely no case to answer. I did not even have to call any evidence.
The Bill proposes that previous misconduct shall be presumed to be satisfactory without any prior judicial examination. I cannot believe that that is right. What is wrong with the concept that in all cases an application should be made by the prosecution for leave that such evidence should be admitted?
I also agree with the Law Society that the Government have failed to make out the case that the defendant's previous convictions may be adduced to
614
establish a propensity to commit the offence charged. What the Government have to meet is the risk that the essential nature of the trial will be about general assumptions about the defendant, rather than evidence about the defence in question.
Very late in the day the Home Secretary introduced amendments setting minimum sentences for murder and thereby hobbled the discretion of the judges and also the proposed—only proposed—sentencing council. It is only by examining each case on its own merits that the right sentence can be imposed. Guidelines have some merit, but they cannot be the final word. Like my noble friend Lady Mallalieu, I am troubled by the provision that the defence should always disclose the information divulged by all experts that have been approached, including that on which the defence has no intention of relying. That is a bad approach that should be wholly rejected in Committee.
I turn to the hearsay rule. In 1997, the Law Commission had this to say about it:
"the main, if not the sole reason why hearsay is inferior to non-hearsay, is that it is not tested by cross-examination. This in itself may justify requiring the witness to attend where possible".
That is partly due to the fact that in criminal trials, the defendant may go to prison. The Human Rights Act, which came into effect about a year ago, also emphasises its objection to hearsay evidence.
There are already exceptions to the hearsay rule. Business records may be admissible, as may statements of the dying or those of witnesses who may be genuinely unavailable. All of those may be admitted.
There is also a case for reform. I agree that the hearsay rule where defendants and victims will benefit from greater clarity should be a case for reform. Reform, however, must be careful and measured. It must conform to the interests of justice. It follows therefore that we should reject such change as will lead to huge amounts of hitherto inadmissible evidence being allowed. We should therefore ensure that Clause 107(1)(d) is carefully considered. The same should apply to Clause 107(1)(a) to (c).
In conclusion, the Bill makes some Valuable contributions to the provisions of criminal law. However, as I have tried to emphasise, there are some very real dangers. The job of all of us is to try to improve the Bill. It is not a party political issue. I hope therefore that my noble and learned friend will examine carefully what is said and will act appropriately.
8.34 p.m.
Baroness Gibson of Market Rasen: My Lords, I am delighted with the recent promotions of my noble friend and my noble and learned friend and I know that they will serve in their new positions with great distinction.
As the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, said earlier, the criminal justice system belongs to the people and so in considering my contribution to the debate, I started with the people. Over the weekend, I carried out a few soundings about expectations of the

615
criminal justice system. I began by asking someone who was involved in the criminal justice system what he believed the system should deliver. He said:
"The essence of justice is that it cements society in a very difficult and increasingly complex world. Without it there is anarchy.
It is essential that society has confidence in both the fairness of the system and its ability to protect the innocent and the most vulnerable, whilst at the same time dealing effectively with those who break its rules".
On asking other friends who are not involved in the criminal justice system in any way about what they expect from the system, two words were paramount: fairness and justice. There was also the belief that we must keep juries for all trials, as now. I must say that that was strongly felt, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, thought that it would be if people were asked.
Other comments were that we need laws which are clearly understood; we need sentences which fit the crime committed; we need a prison system which is fit for the first part of the 21st century and which not only contains those who have committed a crime, but aims to make them better citizens on release. Finally, and very importantly, it was felt that public confidence in the system must be strengthened.
I was very interested in the reaction of the police to the Bill when I attended a meeting here in the House of Lords a few weeks ago. Their overall response was very positive, and the Deputy Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, Ian Blair, said:
"The Bill will do much to remedy individual and collective failures in the current criminal justice system. As it currently stands the system does not give sufficient support to victims or to witnesses—instead it leans towards favouring the defence. This Bill goes a long way to remedy this position".
I want to consider a couple of areas of the Bill, both of which are surrounded by some controversy. The first involves the question of double jeopardy, which, in my small opinion poll, was seen as denying justice as it is at the present time. The law as it stands is an old law with historic roots, which lie in the accused being protected against harassment by the state. In the past that has worked well but time moves on and now we can see that that law sometimes appears to prevent the due course of justice. We should recognise that we are talking about a very few cases—only a handful—to which any new law would apply. A retrial could take place only in certain very serious cases, despite an earlier acquittal, and only if there is new and compelling evidence of an accused person's guilt. I believe that the Government have got this absolutely right. I firmly believe that if new and important evidence is discovered, it should be presented to a court. If that does not happen, perpetrators of the most serious kinds of crime can literally get away with murder. It is believed by many that that has on occasion been the case in the past, particularly in cases of the murder of young people.
As a parent, I cannot imagine what it must be like to have your child murdered. It is beyond my, and most parents', imagination. To see the accused walk away and subsequently find that there is new and compelling
616
evidence against them, which cannot be put before a court because of the double jeopardy law, must be like reliving the horror of the murder all over again.
In discussions about the Bill, the argument has been put that because the crimes are so hideous, the police may be over-zealous in their efforts to find new evidence if they know that there can be a retrial. Indeed, they may not be zealous enough to get evidence for the first trial. However, I have sufficient confidence in the police to believe that their approach in such circumstances would be very professional. Indeed, knowing of such suspicions I am sure they would bend over backwards to ensure that they were behaving fairly and justifiably at all stages of their investigations.
The Bill contains robust safeguards against attempted misuse of the proposals surrounding the double jeopardy ruling. The specific qualifying offences are clearly listed in the Bill. It is worth reiterating that we are talking about a handful of cases only, but these cases are vitally important. We must do what we can as a society to ensure that justice is done in these cases, as in others, for the sake of the victims and their families, and for society in general.
I will now address the question of similar fact evidence and evidence of bad character, where defendants claim to be of good character when in fact they are not, and when their previous convictions have not been admitted in court.
Currently, any such evidence is not generally admissible, even when it is relevant to the case under consideration. This is not fair to the victim, and I support the changes in the law that the Bill proposes. There are strong safeguards in the Bill, for example, both defence and prosecution must agree to the divulgence of information about the bad character of the defendant.
Information must cover the same category of offence as the offence in question. It must be relevant to important issues being discussed between the defendant and the prosecution. The court retains the possibility of excluding such evidence if it believes that it would be correct to do so. Clause 92 explains this in more detail.
The Metropolitan Police have kindly provided me with good examples of why we need these changes. I put them in the "cheeky chappy" area of defence.
The first relates to a case in south Wales where blood was found at the scene of an offence. The defence offered was that the suspect was a regular skateboarder in the area and must have fallen there, leaving blood at the scene at the wrong moment. The suspect had numerous previous convictions for burglary.
The second example, and perhaps my favourite, comes from Surrey, where a prolific and well-known burglar was found 200 metres from a recent burglary. He had with him a mask, a spanner and a bottle of diluted pepper spray. His defence at court was that the mask was for Halloween, the spanner was for his

617
bicycle, and that he was in the area looking to buy cigarettes. Similar fact evidence was not admitted. He was acquitted.
I do not accept the claims of some critics that such admissions will divert the course of justice. As we have said time and time again today, juries are not stupid. They must be treated as adults. As my noble friend Lord Harris of Haringey said, they should not be denied the full use of evidence and they should have the most comprehensive picture possible before them before they have to make their decisions.
Juries should be able to judge the individual in the context of his or her overall behaviour as a citizen. As we have heard, the law as it currently stands has been strongly criticised in a number of important studies. I welcome this attempt to bring more equality to the proceedings between defendant and victim.
Finally, I wish to raise a question that I hope the Minister can answer for me in her winding up. As I understand it, late government amendments to this Bill were tabled in the other place, which allow nonpublic servants to have access to highly sensitive information held on the police national computer.
The Public and Commercial Services Union, which represents the Civil Service staff of the Criminal Records Bureau, is concerned about this. It believes that such information should only be accessed by public servants working in the public sector. The union is worried about data protection and national security implications. It is particularly concerned because it believes that such proposals would allow this information to be passed outside the UK. The Capita group, about which we spoke earlier today in Question Time, is already outsourcing its data processing work to India.
I would be obliged if the Minister could explain the rationale behind government thinking in this area and answer the fears expressed by the workers involved.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Seccombe: My Lords, I am conscious that many noble Lords have considerably more experience and expertise in this field than I do, so I will confine my comments to two areas of the Bill which cause me particular concern. The first is the provisions made for trial by judge alone and the second is the new allowances for the admission of evidence of bad character. I shall take each in turn and outline why I am troubled by the direction in which the Bill is heading.
The Bill would allow trial by judge alone in three circumstances. The first is if the defendant asks for it and is given the consent of the court. The second is in cases of complex or lengthy financial and commercial arrangements. The third is if there is a serious risk of jury intimidation. I would argue that even in those instances, and perhaps above all in those instances, trial by jury should be protected as a safe, reliable and effective way of delivering justice. I quote the Bar Council, which believes that the threat to juries made by this Bill is an
"opportunistic invasion into…the best and fairest form of trial".
618
The Bill changes the role of judges irrevocably and certainly in my opinion for the worse. In addition to his traditional role of sentencing, a judge sitting alone would be given the heavy responsibility for determining the guilt or innocence of a defendant. The repercussions of this are huge. They would be moving beyond being experts in the law into new territory—fact finders—and as such the sole source of accountability. In this way, the burden is placed entirely upon one person, with all the implications that would be involved. He or she would be subject to increased media scrutiny. Questions would be raised as to the rationale of any decisions made; his personal beliefs; his ability to remain impartial; and so on and so forth. I can see the stories quite clearly on the front pages of the tabloids. Is this really the direction in which we wish to go?
The circumstances the Government have deemed suitable for judge-only trials are precisely the circumstances in which it would be most dangerous to do so. Threatening characters with little respect for the law would probably favour such proceedings and be willing to play for high stakes. The pressure put upon a single judge would be enormous and he may become the victim of threats before or during a trial, or subjected to crimes of retribution following a trial. Judge-only trials would inevitably provoke a questioning of the independence of the judiciary.
I also strongly believe that as a matter of principle juries should continue to operate in all Crown Court criminal cases. There is a danger that the public would perceive judge-only trials as white collar crimes being tried in special circumstances by their peers and fellow professionals. These cases would be set apart from normal criminal procedure, giving the appearance of a regulatory tribunal and the guilty being let off lightly. Instead, we should make it clear that everyone, no matter what their crime, should be judged by a cross-section of the public with no special cases.
Above all, I believe that the circumstances the Government have outlined as cases for judge-only trials can be more than satisfactorily dealt with by the current system. First, if the defendant requests trial by judge alone, this is surely based upon a calculation that he or she stands a greater chance of acquittal or being given a lighter sentence. Surely we should not allow the system to be manipulated in this way.
Secondly, when a case involves complex commercial or financial detail, it is up to the prosecution and defence to simplify matters so that it is understandable by all. Issues that are important in establishing whether the accused is innocent or guilty—such as whether he is telling the truth—are usually not hard to grasp.
Finally, when there is evidence of jury tampering, surely the right thing to do is just to continue the present practice; a new jury should be found. We should not bend to the threats of organised crime by eliminating the jury so that they can focus all their efforts upon intimidating the judge, who will then become the only target.

619
I am most concerned that an institution so successful and well respected as trial by jury is coming under threat in this Bill and I cannot voice my opposition to this aspect of it more strongly. I add to this an expression of my fears about evidence of bad character and the assault this makes on another pillar of our justice system—the principle of innocence until proven guilty.
I understand and accept there can be instances when it is important for previous convictions of a defendant to be revealed to the court. I think a good balance is achieved at present where a defendant's previous convictions are revealed only if the defendant attacks the bad character of a prosecution witness or the defendant asserts his own good character or if there are strikingly similar circumstances to a previous conviction. But extending this, as the Bill proposes, is in my estimation a dangerous and unwelcome proposition.
By allowing evidence of bad character to be given more freely, a number of unfortunate consequences would result. A significant aspect of innocent until proven guilty is that during the trial, judgment should be based upon the evidence provided. If a guilty verdict is returned, this is because the evidence overwhelmingly points in that direction. With evidence on previous convictions admissible in more circumstances, there is a risk that on these occasions, judgment will be made on the back of general assumptions about the bad character of the person charged rather than sufficient attention being given to the evidence before the court.
I am glad that in all my time on the Bench I was never aware of a defendant's record until after the completion of the prosecution and defence cases. I feel I was able to approach the case with a clear mind and no preconceptions. I believe it is more likely there could be miscarriages of justice: whether it is because of the previous conviction, that the police suspected, arrested and brought a person to trial in the first place, or maybe because of the same previous conviction a guilty verdict is returned.
If a person has committed a crime once, they may be more likely to be found guilty again. This will take away the importance of the meticulous collecting of evidence in preparation for a trial as possibly what will really sway the jury is the list of crimes that an individual has committed previously. The very real temptation for the police would be to round up all the usual suspects following a crime, taking the view that convicting them would be so much easier when their bad character would speak for itself. What is more, it would be so much harder for ex-criminals to rehabilitate in the knowledge that they would be labelled and presumed guilty if they were ever to end up in court again.
There are measures in this Bill that I welcome but others that worry me as the needless attack upon well-tried and tested elements of our judicial system. While I understand the Government's efforts to increase efficiency, I feel that this should not in any way be an
620
excuse to cut corners and it certainly should not be to the detriment of thoroughness and scrupulousness. I am afraid that in certain instances, that is exactly what this Bill would achieve.
8.54 p.m.
Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I too would like to extend my congratulations to my noble friend and my noble and learned friend, but with some caveats. I would like to say to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor—who is going to be involved in some serious constitutional change—that as one of the members of this House who gave evidence to the Royal Commission on Reform of this House, I was very much an advocator of a reform of the Lord Chancellor's role. I felt that the time had come for there to be a supreme court and for our judiciary to be given their proper place in our legal firmament. I also felt strongly that it was no longer appropriate that the Lord Chancellor should sit as a judge or appoint the judiciary or Queen's Counsel as in the past, and that the time had come to create a judicial appointments commission.
However, I am concerned that the way in which those changes have now taken place will place much greater power in the hands of the Home Secretary, without the check and balance, as it were, of having the Lord Chancellor in the Cabinet to speak on criminal justice matters and about how liberty may be affected or the judiciary undermined.
I also give my noble friend Lady Scotland a warning. Entering the Home Office has a strange effect on some people. I suspect that it is something in the water, but it tends to have a terrible impact on any tendency towards liberality. I ask her to prevail against that and to take great care.
I am afraid that the Bill is yet another example of the Government's somewhat drunken romance with modernisation. There is nothing wrong with modernisation, but it should be grounded in principle. This is modernisation without any thought about the impact on the checks and balances that are so fundamental to the system of justice. It is modernisation with no account given to the cost in terms of injustice if people are wrongly convicted, and without drawing at all on the wealth of moral and legal wisdom that has informed our system for so long.
No one suggests that the law should remain unchanged. One strength of our legal system is that it develops by accretion—it adds new layers to deal with changes in our world and society. Sometimes those changes must be fought for strenuously, as has been the case in trying to make the law respond to the changing status and aspirations of women. Sometimes the fight is against the conservatism of the legal profession or the judges. Sometimes, it is a struggle against the reactionary views of the government of the day.
Constitutional change or change to the system of justice should always take place against a backdrop of principle. I have long advocated legal reform to make the law accessible, more representative and more in

621
tune with contemporary life. But I can only express my profound disappointment—in fact, disappointment is too generous a word; my shame—at the roll-call of this
Government's assaults on liberty. If we reflect on them, they make for sorry reading.
It is disgraceful that a Labour Government have behaved in so cavalier a fashion with civil liberties during the past six years. They have failed to remember that when civil liberties are removed, the first to suffer are the most marginalised in our society; and that the safeguards created over the years are the product of struggle and pain experienced by the very people that we are supposed to protect from abuse. We can be absolutely sure that it will be the black and other minority communities who will first find their young people wrongly arrested and convicted when it is made easier to obtain convictions. It is always those with least voice in our society who suffer most when civil liberties are removed.
It saddens me to say this, but I see the Bill as the product of a Government which, despite their huge majority—this is such a surprise to so many of us—are still so unsure and insecure that they look to opinion polls, focus groups and the tabloid press before creating policy; that they respond to a small number of high-profile cases when reforming justice; and that they become belligerent when judges hold them to account, as judges properly should. It is as though some kind of swaggering machismo dictates law reform, so that the Government can show that they are doing something, anything, to demonstrate that they can be tough on crime. That reminds me of nothing more than men who boast about size to mask uncertainty about their masculinity, and my God, we have a big Bill here.
Liberty, I am afraid, is not divisible in the way the Government seem to think. When governments remove liberty, they always seek to persuade people that it is in their interests, that it is only the criminals who will suffer the consequences and that the innocent have nothing to fear. The truth is that the "them" they are protecting us from is really "us".
The key features of this Bill which cause concern have been rehearsed by many noble Lords. I do not intend to repeat many of their injunctions to the Government, alerting them to the folly of much that is contained in this legislation. However, I shall deal first with the attack on juries. I do so because I have spoken many times in this House about juries.
I say to the House: do not be fooled. This is a journey and the past should be our guide. The Government have designs on the jury, and this is just the beginning. We know that because we have been here before. Time after time, we tried to deal with the importance of juries in our system and why we need to retain them. A previous Home Secretary sought repeatedly to undermine jury trial. A new Home Secretary is seeking to do the same, but from a different direction. As others have said, while this may seem to deal only with complex fraud matters, do not be deceived, because we are being told that anything complex involving financial matters could fall under
622
this heading. We can be sure that it will involve money laundering and therefore money laundering in relation to drugs. It will involve money laundering in relation to terrorism and we shall find it creeping into many other areas. So when the Government say, "Trust us. Jury trial is safe in our hands", I am afraid that trust is something that many people are now questioning.
Secondly, I shall deal quickly with double jeopardy. Here we are creating a provisional acquittal. It means that when I finish a case—and I do not represent the rich; I do not represent those who are hugely privileged—and my client has been acquitted of a serious crime, I cannot say, "Put this behind you. Start again and forget the trauma and nightmare you have been through". People will always be afraid of the hand on their shoulder. It is what the people of this country have happily lived without.
Of course the story is told that this is all about DNA, but have we heard of one case in the pipeline where the DNA would suddenly solve something, where someone has been acquitted and DNA has now shown that they were guilty? If it were there, we can be sure that it would be pointed out and the case named. The Government point to a very small number of cases in relation to double jeopardy, in fact four in all; two of them concerning cases where, after the event, professional criminals wrote books or went on television boasting of crimes they had committed. They were going to benefit financially from doing so. There might be a question mark over whether they had been truthful about the crimes of which they had been boasting.
Another case is a sad one of a young woman who was murdered. Having been acquitted, her murderer later confessed. However, he was tried for perjury and given a prison sentence. Although that was not the same sentence he would have received had he been convicted of murder or manslaughter, at least there was some recognition of the wrong. However, taking away the double jeopardy rule will mean introducing a whole new phenomenon that the press, the media and campaigners will develop as soon as someone steps out of a courtroom having been acquitted.
I know that other noble Lords have referred to the issue of previous convictions but it really is about deleting the standard of proof and introducing a presumption of guilt. Important work has been carried out by Professor Sally Lloyd Bostock, who is both a lawyer and a psychologist. She has looked at the way in which certain information could affect judgment. She is very concerned about how this kind of information could totally distort the way in which a jury would assess a case. No research has been carried out by the Government on any possible impact this may have. This is law reform being made in response to a populist agenda.
While reading on the front page of the newspapers daily concerns about the state of our prisons, the number of people currently in them and the crisis this is creating, we are now seeing a ratcheting up of sentences and rhetoric being used by the Home Secretary which can only add to the numbers already in prison.

623
I am very concerned that the doubling of the sentencing powers of magistrates may have the effect of increasing the number of people on small sentences within our prisons, but I am particularly concerned about the ratcheting up at the higher level. We may end up travelling down the same road as the United States. Already we are at the top of the league table for the whole of Europe in the way in which we sentence people.
Ministers seem to forget that justice is not only a result but also a process. If it was only a result we would be content for police officers to behave badly in police stations in order to secure confessions in unacceptable ways; we would be content for evidence to be found in wholly unacceptable ways. But we know that the process matters, too, because of the effect that it has on the public and the confidence there must be in our system.
There are miscarriages of justice in the freeing of the guilty and in the convicting of the innocent. The problem is that other than by improving police investigations—which certainly need improving—there is no way of reducing the freeing of the guilty without increasing the conviction of the innocent. Every time we make it easier to convict the guilty we increase the likelihood of convicting the innocent. We also increase the violation of individual rights.
We have to ask ourselves as a society whether that is a price we are prepared to pay. Are we happy that innocent people should be locked up? Have we forgotten the lessons? Did the Prime Minister ever read about Giuseppe Conlan and the campaign of the cardinal for his release? He was a man who was innocent—and on his deathbed proclaimed his innocence—and was wrongly convicted. Did the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary ever read about or hear speaking Stefan Kisko, a man who was innocent but who spent 17 years in prison after being convicted of something that he had not done? His mother died and he himself died two years after his release, his life having been hell in prison because to be convicted of murdering a child is one of the worst things any prisoner could have done. Do any of these stories ever impact on Ministers? Do we not remember? Is memory expunged? Or is it wilful amnesia?
Law matters. Liberty is precious. When the Government talk about rebalancing the system, do not be deceived. We are not talking here about rebalancing the system in favour of the victims, we are talking about rebalancing the system in favour of the state. The Bill gives huge, increased powers to the state, which is why it is so pernicious. Others have said that the Bill contains some good proposals. That is true, but, by heavens, they are far outweighed by other terrible proposals.
I shall take part in all the Committee stages in this House. There are many ways in which we, the Members of this House, will seek to be heard. We only hope that this time the Government may listen.
9.10 p.m.
Lord Lloyd of Berwick: My Lords, I had hoped to be able to take part in this debate. I have listened with great interest to the speeches made so far, not least that which we have just heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. However, as your Lordships will perhaps already have appreciated, I have unfortunately—or fortunately—lost my voice. Therefore, with the permission of the House and the consent of the noble Baroness, whom I, too, congratulate, I wonder whether I may let her have in writing the points that I would have made, all but two of which have already been very fully covered. Since I cannot expect the noble Baroness to reply to a speech that she has not heard, I also wonder whether, with the further permission of the House, I might now retire home and promptly go to bed.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
9.11 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I sympathise with the noble and learned Lord who has lost his voice. I speak as a non-lawyer, and I appreciate the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor's encouraging discussion on this Bill. Like other noble Lords, I congratulate him and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on their new positions.
I want to ask the Minister, as have the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, to consider and comment on the implication of the Bill for children and young people, which is sometimes overlooked. The All-Party Children Group—I declare an interest as co-chair—recently met with several organisations concerned with child welfare to discuss the Bill, and I want to reflect on some of their concerns. The group meets again next week, and I hope that subsequently we shall be able to meet the Minister to discuss possible ways forward. I know that she is interested in children and young people and I know that she listens. I hope that she will listen to us.
The UN Committee on the Rights of the Child has expressed serious concerns about the UK's treatment of children in trouble with the law, and in particular our failure to establish a system of justice for juveniles that integrates the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.
The organisations that met with the All-Party Children Group supported the general principle of ensuring that children in trouble with the law are treated first as children, with an explicitly separate system of justice for children and young people from that for adults. This is not about being soft on young offenders. It is about what works to protect individuals and communities. It is also about what works in rehabilitating young people who may have been damaged by a system beyond their control, such as inadequate parenting, care systems and educational underachievement.
Let me express some specific concerns. Clause 3 amends the Police and Criminal Evidence Act to allow the police to grant immediate bail at the scene of the

625
arrest, rather than taking the arrested person to the police station. Of course, police time is important, and, where possible, we should avoid taking children to police stations. When a child is arrested, the police must currently ensure that a parent, carer or other appropriate adult is informed and present during the procedures. If a child is bailed at the scene of the arrest, the onus on informing a parent or carer may be left to the child. For a variety of reasons, such as fear or shame, he or she may not want to do that. It is clear, however, that the responsibility to ensure that the child answers bail at a future date will fall to the parent or carer.
There is concern about the proposed increase from 24 to 36 hours in the time limit for detaining suspects before any charge is made for any arrestable offences. Clause 5 would allow detention for a whole range of non-serious or minor offences. This could lead to increased detention periods for children, and that should be weighed against the known harm which can result from detention. The proposed measure seems disproportionate to the range of offences involved. The Home Affairs Committee has also expressed concern about these provisions.
The provisions relating to the sentencing of children and young people also needs consideration. Detention should be used only as a measure of last resort and for as short a time as possible, as required by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Part 12 of the Bill introduces new custodial sentences for children. We have had over the past 10 years a massive increase in the number of children being sentenced to detention, despite good intentions to limit the number of children being sentenced to custody and to the use of custody as a last resort. Again, I go back to my earlier concerns about adult provision being applied to children and about what works best for children and society.
Murders committed by under-18s are rare and their circumstances are varied. I am aware that at Third Reading in another place, an undertaking was given to review the setting of the minimum period of detention of children convicted of murder and of the means of sentencing, so I will say no more about this.
Clause 217 provides for indeterminate custodial sentences of detention for life and detention for public protection for children aged 10 to 17 for serious sexual and violent offences on the basis of an assessment of dangerousness or potential dangerousness. Such sentences would mean a tremendous leap in the restriction of liberty for children and would introduce a mandatory element which would result in more children being locked up for longer. Again, the provisions mirror adult provision and again, we should look. at what works best for children and for society. Children should not have to suffer the anxiety of not knowing the length of a sentence.
Following the Howard League judgment which established the applicability of the Children Act to prisons, there is a need to set up a clear legal framework for the youth justice system, to be guided by child-centred principles which meet the UK's
626
obligations under international and domestic law and which provide guidance for those working in the youth justice system, including the Prison Service, the courts and youth offending teams. I understand that an amendment tabled in another place to establish such a framework was not debated due to lack of time. I hope we shall have further discussions on this.
The main purpose of the youth justice system, as phrased in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is the prevention of reoffending. We need to clarify what is understood by child welfare and set clear principles for those who have to operate the youth justice system not only in the courts but throughout the system in order to tackle reoffending.
Apart from the criminal justice system, it is of course important that all agencies at a national and local level work together to ensure that child welfare is central to our systems. I welcome the creation of a Minister for children to oversee this, among other things. Preventing young people from getting into trouble with the law in the first place and rehabilitating them if they do is crucial to a civilised society. Not only will children and young people benefit, but so will society as a whole. I believe that we need to be imaginative and farsighted in approaching the issue of children and the law. Will the Minister take this into account?
9.19 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I, too, join your Lordships in congratulating the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, on her promotion. The two issues I will focus on are in Part 1, on amendments of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, and in Part 12 on sentencing.
First, while I have no objection to the taking of fingerprints and non-intimate samples of body fluids for DNA analysis without consent from persons following a recordable offence, these procedures should be reviewed regularly by an independent body separate from the police service. The review will help to assure members of ethnic minority groups that the procedures have been performed according to legal requirements and not for any other reason.
Next, sentencing arrangements should ensure punishment appropriate for the offender, protection of the public from dangerous offenders and that re-offending is reduced among adults and young people. All the proposed changes in the Bill will require an appropriate injection of resources both professional and financial. Without those resources the Bill is unlikely to achieve the improvements that the Government would expect.
In the debate mention has been made of the Sentencing Advisory Panel. Here, I declare my membership of the Sentencing Advisory Panel since it was launched in July 1999. I am one of three lay members on the panel. Other members are drawn from High Court judges, magistrates, the Prison Service, the community service, the police service and from academics specialising in sentencing. The panel, constituted under Sections 80 and 81 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, is an independent advisory and

627
consultative non-departmental public body sponsored by the Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department.
The Sentencing Advisory Panel's overall objective is to promote consistency in sentencing. The panel does that by providing fully researched objective advice to the Court of Appeal to assist the court in framing or revising sentencing guidelines on particular offences or categories of offences.Before submitting a proposal to the Court of Appeal the panel is required by the Act to obtain and consider the views of individuals and bodies approved for that purpose by the Lord Chancellor, after consultation with the Home Secretary and the Lord Chief Justice. The panel must then formulate its own views and communicate them to the court, together with information on the sentencing profile for the relevant category of offences, the cost of different sentences and their relative effectiveness in preventing re-offending.
The first proposal of the Sentencing Advisory Panel was on environmental offences including pollution by oil tankers at sea and illegal tipping of toxic waste in landfill sites. That was followed in May 2000 by one on offensive weapons that had to wait until October 2002 when the Court of Appeal found an opportunity to use the panel's advice in a guideline judgment in Poulton and Celaire. Since 1999 the Court of Appeal has issued sentencing guidelines based on proposals from the panel on the following offences in chronological order: racially aggravated offences, the importation and possession of opium, handling stolen goods, the use of extended sentences for sexual and violent offences, minimum terms in murder cases—as was put forward to us by the Lord Chief Justice—offences involving offensive weapons, offences involving child pornography, rape, domestic burglary and causing death by dangerous driving. All have been used by the Court of Appeal in guideline judgements.
The Bill recommends the composition of a Sentencing Guidelines Council to replace the Court of Appeal. The council will frame and revise sentencing guidelines. It will notify the Sentencing Advisory Panel to consult on those guidelines as the panel has done for the past four years. Membership of the Sentencing Guidelines Council, though mainly comprising the judiciary, will also include members from the criminal justice system. I consider that arrangement a duplication of the Sentencing Advisory Panel that has, in addition, the benefit of lay members. In that I agree with the Lord Chief Justice, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, that the Sentencing Guidelines Council should be made up of the judiciary.
9.24 p.m.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I add my congratulations to my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and to my noble friend the Minister of State on their respective promotions. I should also like to congratulate the Government on their White Paper Justice for All, published last year, and on the introduction of this Criminal Justice Bill.
628
The Government's policy on reducing crime is obviously working as there has been a sustained overall decrease in crime since 1997. I believe that there are good intentions in reforming the criminal justice system to ensure that persistent offenders, serious violent criminals and sexual offenders are given longer sentences, with flexibility for the judges to be able to deal with individual cases according to their merit. I also welcome the Government's strategy in the Bill to move away from custody for offenders who are more likely to respond to community sentences. I therefore welcome paragraph 791 of the Explanatory Notes. However, there are a number of concerns and a few suggestions that I should like to share.
Many people within our communities welcome the idea of a criminal justice system that is balanced, fair and representative. That is why I welcome many of the proposed reforms to the criminal justice system, such as ensuring that juries are more representative. The criminal justice system must serve ethnic minority communities more effectively if it is to deliver justice fairly and promote confidence in its performance. It is well known that minority groups are disproportionately represented in all parts of the criminal justice system—as suspects, as defendants and offenders, as victims and employees.
Young black people are stopped and searched four times more often than young white people. There is a great disparity in the numbers. The proportion of black people in prison in England and Wales is five times greater than their proportion of the population as a whole. Black people found guilty of offences are sentenced to custody sooner and for longer than are white people. Young Muslim men in the Bradford riots received longer sentences than did those who participated in the Millwall and Birmingham City football riots and in disturbances in Northern Ireland. Young Muslim men with beards and in ethnic or religious clothes are continually stopped and harassed at airports and regularly searched in public places. Poverty and social deprivation among some minority ethnic groups makes them more vulnerable both to property offences and to offences of violence. Minority ethnic groups are also the target of racist offenders.
A few years ago, in his annual Labour Party conference speech, the Prime Minister said that he would like to see more judges, senior police officers, senior prison officers and civil servants who come from the ethnic minorities. I wholeheartedly support his intention. In reality, however, only a few individuals have reached such positions, such as Mr Tariq Ghaffur, the assistant commissioner of police.
The Government's proposed reforms to the criminal justice system do little to redress that appalling imbalance. The system is broken and it needs an overhaul. In that sense the call for reform is welcome. However, proposed changes to the criminal justice system will worsen an already intolerable situation and further undermine existing civil liberties. Reforms include proposals to disclose previous convictions in

629
court, greater use of hearsay evidence, changes to the double jeopardy laws, trials without a jury and the extension of police powers.
I believe that there are many thousands of police officers who have a challenging job in very difficult circumstances. Many perform their duties in an excellent manner, but a few bring the whole police force into disrepute. One of the most controversial changes in the Bill for the black and Asian communities is the extension of police powers to stop and search. For many black and Asian men the experience has been not simply a matter of inconvenience and annoyance; such stops can lead and have led to physical abuse and emotional trauma and potentially to fatalities.
Both government and independent researchers have consistently demonstrated that stop and search is applied in inner-city areas with a high proportion of ethnic minority communities. Although the overall number of stop and searches by the police decreased by 17 per cent in 2000–01, the number of black people exposed to that police procedure increased by 4 per cent during that period. In London, where the overall instances of stops dropped from 40 per cent in 2000 to 6 per cent in 2001, the number of blacks and Asians stopped rose by 6 per cent and 3 per cent respectively, while for the white community they dropped by 14 per cent. In 1998–99 black people were six times more likely to be stopped and searched than white people.
Despite the 17 per cent drop, the total number of people stopped from all racial groups was staggering. In 1989, 202,000 stops occurred. Those figures grew to 690,000 in 1995, 857,000 in 1999 and a colossal 1.1 million in 1998. The numbers began to drop only after continuous complaints and the Stephen Lawrence inquiry report.
I understand that the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) did not bring many results. According to Home Office figures, 87 per cent of the total number of people stopped were found not to have violated any law but were still arrested. When arrests occur, whether under stop and search or otherwise, they continue apparent trends of racial discrimination. The rate of arrests broken down by race for whites is 26 per thousand; for Asians, 27 per thousand; and for blacks 113 per thousand.
The Bill also contains provisions to allow the police to impose bail restrictions on anyone they arrest, even before he or she is charged and brought before a court. That measure must be seen in the context of the recent rise in the use by the police—spurred on by the Government's street crime initiative—of the controversial stop and search powers and even greater black over-representation among those subjected to such treatment.
Some organisations believe that stop and search has long been used in inner cities and in black communities as a form of general street-level surveillance. Current statistics by the Home Office show that an equal proportion of black and white people are charged following an arrest. However, a great proportion of black and Asian suspects were less likely to be granted
630
bail. Indeed, 35 per cent of black suspects and 34 per cent of Asian suspects were refused bail compared with 20 per cent of white suspects. Therefore. I believe that only magistrates should have the right to grant bail, as they have the statutory powers to deliver justice.
Consequently, I do not believe that it is necessary to increase detention limits from 24 to 36 hours as the power already exists when authorised by a superintendent. The existing ground that justifies further detention should be made out in any case where it is necessary to hold someone in custody for a long time.
I was a magistrate in Rotherham for eight years before coming to your Lordships House. My experience on the Bench was that it is one of the best systems in the world, where ordinary citizens, with personal experience and knowledge of their own communities, administer justice. While we all acknowledge that the local magistrates' Bench should reflect the local community—I congratulate the Magistrates' Association and the Government for encouraging black and Asian communities to volunteer and apply—the ethnic minorities are still under-represented forming only 5 per cent of the total.
I am deeply concerned about Clauses 41, 42. 43 and 45 in relation to indictment trials which could take place in certain circumstances without a jury at the request of the defendant, the prosecutor or the judge. While the scope for indictments that would he covered by that proposal is limited to complex fraud cases and cases where there is a serious risk that the jury will be subjected to intimidation, the trend is dangerous and threatening for black and ethnic minority communities. Should this proposal catch on with prosecutors and judges, it will become a slippery slope of compromised justice, an excuse for expediency, convenience and cost.
Also, a study produced by researchers at the Legal Research Institute, University of Warwick, provides clear evidence that government plans to restrict the right of jury trial will serve to disadvantage ethnic minority defendants. It also contradicts arguments put forward by Home Office Ministers that defendants widely abuse the right to elect jury trial, showing that defendants who took their cases to jury trial were much more likely to be acquitted than those who elected to be tried before magistrates. Eleven of the 20 blacks tried before a jury were acquitted, compared with only one in 20 acquitted by magistrates following contested trials.
Although I have full confidence in the magistrates' court system, organisations such as the Black Londoners Forum have expressed their concern. In relation to extending the powers of the magistrates' courts, they argue that less than five percent of all magistrates are black and Asian—hardly representative of those coming into the system. Virtually all the court cases in England and Wales end up on the magistrates' remit.
Efforts to reduce the growing number of people being sent to prison, through experimental plans such as the proposed "custody plus", which combines

631
incarceration with home prison, are laudable. Yet the difference between sentences given by magistrates and the Crown Court is disturbing. The latter often reduces, on appeal, the sentences given by local judges—apparently rejecting what it sees as excessive lengths. As Lee Bridges, chair of the School of Law at Warwick University, notes:
"If magistrates are given power to send more of these defendants to prison and for longer, they will do so. This is bound to lead to a further surge in the prison population."
The prison population has increased dramatically, from 44,600 in 1993 to more than 73,000 today. The numbers continue to grow. The number of black and ethnic minority—particularly Muslim—prisoners is disproportionately high in the prison population. While I am on the subject, I will also mention that I was recently informed that the sister of an alleged companion of a Tel Aviv suicide bomber is being kept in a male prison. I would like my noble friend the Minister to tell the House whether this is correct, and if so, the reason for this disgraceful act.
Also, a study on race and sentencing found that ethnic minority offenders were sentenced more severely than comparable white offenders in some Crown Courts, though not in others. Additional research also shows that magistrates send a higher proportion of black defendants to prison than white persons. Magistrates also quite often send cases to Crown Courts which then sentence defendants to terms within magistrates' powers. This implies that magistrates may impose longer sentences.
In conclusion, the black and Asian communities have a sincere interest in a criminal justice system that operates fairly and judiciously. Our criminal justice system has yet to meet these criteria when it comes to delivering to these communities.
The Criminal Justice Bill does not address some of the very fundamental issues regarding crime and the application of justice in black and minority ethnic communities. It fails to address the immediate and the root causes of crime. It fails to address the dismal, disproportionate tides that scar the system. It fails to address the tidal wave of incarceration that will make Great Britain the great prison state of Europe. If the proposals advocated in the Bill are carried through—particularly the calls to end the double jeopardy rule, eliminate trial by jury, and allow hearsay and previous conviction evidence—it will constitute a serious setback.
We are at a crossroads. We can continue along the path outlined in this Bill, heading towards a system that in the next 10 years could very much resemble the current criminal justice crisis in the United States: more prisons; less security; more lives ruined. Remarkably, the crisis in the United States has grown even as crime rates have dramatically fallen. This is due in large part to the rigid policies that are now in place and have taken on a life of their own.
The Government have introduced excellent initiatives in crime reduction and amendments to the Race Relations Act 1976 to ensure that all British
632
citizens are treated equally. I hope that when the Bill passes through the House, it will serve all members of our community equally well.
9.39 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, at this stage in this rich and well informed debate, I shall restrict myself in the main to some comments on the sentencing provisions in Part 12, but first I must mention some general matters. Most importantly, I should like to echo the pleasure on all sides of the House at the new position occupied by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. Her promotion has cheered up many very depressed Home Office watchers who feel better knowing that she is there.
Much in this Bill gives cause for grave anxiety to all those concerned not only with civil liberties, but also with justice. I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, for her devastating exposition of that in relation to the disclosure of previous convictions. It calls into question our adherence to the international human rights norms and guidelines in many areas. This country is widely respected abroad for its fine legal traditions and its adherence to the highest standards of justice. Many other countries have modelled their legal systems on ours.
In my role as board member of Penal Reform International—I declare that as an interest—I am very concerned about the effects of many of these proposed changes on the work being done to introduce fair justice systems, and respect for the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary in countries that do not currently have any of those things. We are setting a very bad example.
In that context, I should like to raise two examples, chosen from a large number. The first is the principle of harsher sentencing for persistence. The Home Office background briefing states that,
"previous convictions (where they are recent and relevant) should be treated as an aggravating factor when determining the sentence severity. Persistent offenders must know that there will be steady progress towards custody, increasing in length, if they continually offend and fail to respond to previous sentences".
When the Soviet Union first fell apart and we started meeting people from there who wanted to reform their vast and cruel prison system, a reform group made a video called "Especially Dangerous Recidivists". When we saw the video, it turned out to be about about a prison full of elderly women, mostly toothless and bundled up against the cold, serving 10 years for theft. They had committed small thefts, but they kept doing it—and under Soviet law, to keep committing a crime, however minor, was a crime in itself; and refusing, or being unable, to reform was also an offence.
I remember some 20 years ago how hard Home Office officials worked with others to remove from prison the large numbers of petty persistent offenders, no danger to anyone, serving disproportionate sentences because of their persistence. This so-called "modernising" Bill will take us right back there. It is the sort of measure that makes a country a high-imprisoning country.

633
A second area of great disquiet is the further erosion of the status of children as children in the criminal justice system. The noble Baronesses, Lady Linklater and Lady Massey, spoke eloquently on that. The introduction of new custodial sentences for children, and particularly the 15-year minimum term for children who are convicted of murder, move us even further away from meeting our obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child.
I should like to comment briefly on the main changes in sentencing against the background of the current crisis in the criminal justice system. It is not disputed by anyone that sentencing practice over the past decade has changed. The prison population has increased from around 40,000 10 years ago to 73,000 now. This is not because we are locking up more violent and sexual offenders. The proportion of those in the prison population convicted of those offences has actually fallen. It is because sentencing has moved towards greater harshness. The cases that used to get quite long sentences are getting even longer ones; the cases that used to get short prison sentences are getting longer prison sentences; the people who used to get probation or community service are getting short prison sentences; and the cases that used to get fines and warnings are getting probation and community service. The fines have almost disappeared.
The criminal justice system, court hearings, punishment and the imposition of a stigmatising criminal record are being applied more promiscuously. Examples may be dismissed as purely anecdotal but noble Lords may have read of the rather enterprising man who went out at night diving to the bottom of lakes for lost golf balls, which he subsequently sold. According to news reports, the Crown Court gave him six months' imprisonment for stealing those lost golf balls, noting that he did not show any remorse at his trial. The Court of Appeal regarded the sentence as disproportionate and reduced it to a conditional discharge. Prison is the most severe penalty that we have at our disposal and we have started to think that it is right to use it for those who appropriate other people's lost golf balls from the bottom of lakes.
We cannot fail to be aware, nor can we he surprised, at the crisis in the prisons and the stories that we read of goings on in the prison system. Many people will blame the Prison Service for incompetence. I do not. It is we—that is, Parliament—who have failed to protect our prison staff from seeing their daily work become a constant struggle with crisis, their humane standards rendered impossible to deliver and their rehabilitative programmes cancelled. We give them the responsibility to inform families that their imprisoned relative has been moved 400 miles away and to explain to prisoners why education classes are not running that day and why they are being moved to a prison that is miles away at two hours' notice as part of what is called an overcrowding draft. They have to tell families when their relatives have committed suicide. We are here to discuss justice but these are all injustices that we should deplore and seek to remedy.
634
The prison population increases every month and we do not provide the resources to deal with it presumably because, quite reasonably, the Treasury thinks that £2.8 billion a year on prisons is enough. In considering the Bill, we should look not just at principle but also at the practicalities. Will these measures put even more pressure on services that are already stretched to capacity and will the Treasury provide the additional money?
It is difficult to find out exactly what the estimates are of the increase in the prison population and the probation population as a result of the proposed measures. The figure of an increase of 1,000 in the prison population has been produced. However, that must be part of the wishful thinking that characterises other parts of the thinking about the Bill. Most people of experience have no doubt that these measures will lead to a vastly increased prison population. The money will not be forthcoming and the crisis will continue and worsen. That is the background against which we should try to improve the Bill so that it reduces our unnecessary use of prison. I am glad to say that there are ways in which that could actually lead to a more sparing and proportionate use of prison and an opportunity for hard-pressed prison and probation staff to do a proper job.
First, in Clause 22, conditional cautions are proposed. That means that at the lower end of offending the possibility would be created—it is very common in a number of European countries—of defendants who admitted guilt being allowed by the prosecutor, with the agreement of the victim, to make recompense to the victim or to society and be diverted from prosecution. This would enable us to move more in the direction so well outlined by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn of sanctions that did not require punishment and suffering.
Secondly, suspended sentences are mentioned in Clause 181. Suspended sentences are used very widely in a number of other countries that manage to retain a much lower imprisonment rate than we do in this country. The return of the suspended sentence could help in that aim. But this House would need to look at changes to make the proposals in the Bill more flexible in the event of a breach, or it will just lead to more imprisonment.
Thirdly, the new generic community sentence could function well, provided that its presentation to the public is well-thought out, better-thought out, I hope, than the ill-fated legislation that was passed through this House that changed the names of all the community sentences into something that sounded tough, but had no effect whatever on public perception.
This legislation will only be realisable within the resources that will be available for it if the Home Secretary's statement in the Second Reading debate in the other place on 4th December that,
"we should send people to prison only as a last resort".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/12/02; co1.926.]
is incorporated as a governing principle of the Government's strategy in this Bill.

635
In Canada, the fundamental principle of sentencing is laid down:
"A sentence must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender".
The most recent Canadian Criminal Code of 1996 states:
"An offender should not be deprived of liberty if less restrictive sanctions may be appropriate in the circumstances…and all available sanctions other than imprisonment that are reasonable in the circumstances should be considered for all offenders".
Since the introduction of that formulation in 1996, the prison population in Canada has gone down from 39,000 to 36,000. If we do not look at the sentencing provisions in this Bill in this way, we shall all be here debating another crisis in the prisons and another bad chief inspector's report for years and years to come.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I hope that the House will permit me to say publicly to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, how proud the community from which she hails is of her, and to congratulate both her and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on taking up their new posts.
Like most other noble Lords, I welcome the Bill, and I commend much of what it pertains to achieve. All the points have been ably debated by others more qualified than me. However, two areas are of some concern to the community from which I come. I would like the Minister to reflect on my concerns before the Bill becomes enshrined in law.
The double jeopardy law, which has existed since the 14th century, could be seen as needing to be changed, as we are now in the 21st century. However, I should like to urge caution. The proposed changes would so alter the position of the accused as to expose the individual to the arbitrary exercise of state power.
As has been said, the rule as it stands serves several purposes, among them that it promotes effective investigation and prosecution. If this is failing, and we wish to rectify it, is there a need to change the system, or should we be giving better training to the constabulary to do a good job of investigating?
The Stephen Lawrence murder did not go unpunished because of bad law; it went unpunished because of bad detective work. The inquiry showed this very clearly. The law as it stands confirms the importance of finality in the criminal justice process. It serves both the defendant and the victim. The victim has a need for closure, as was said by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws. However advanced technology becomes, the state should not be forced to resort to the methods of a crime fiction writer who is able to harass an individual until he gets the results he wants.
The intuition of police officers should never be a licence to hound fellow human beings, as would be the case if an officer got a bee in his bonnet about someone whom he believed to be guilty. As the arguments have
636
already been forcefully put to the House, I will move to my next concern; the trial and indictment without a jury.
I would not rehearse the arguments, even if I were capable of doing so, but I want to suggest and remind the House that juries represent the community. Race relations advisers have fought to secure the right that juries were multi-racial and multi-cultural. Nor will 1 try to rehearse the arguments of those who took part in the Report stage debate in the House of Commons. I believe that defendants already have the right to waive a jury trial.
In the case of the visible minority groups, judges continue to make prejudicial statements, some of which are hurtful and can be damaging to those standing before them. One such statements made by a Home Secretary recently was, "Black boys are all muggers". My Lords, my sons are not muggers. How would they fare if they were put before a judge who held such views?
This is perhaps one of the milder prejudicial statements that are often reported to be the utterances of learned gentlemen. I would submit that this is not the moment to change course. The Home Office is in the process of implementing the action plans prompted by the Macpherson report. Perhaps what we need at this time is to feel secure that the judiciary is free from prejudice before we move towards a change from the defence election for trial by jury.
The right to elect for trial by a judge alone may well have a negative effect on victims of crime, especially if the case is about racial abuse. The judge alone may be persuaded by a blond, blue-eyed defendant with whom he identifies rather than the black male, who in his mind conjures up strange pictures of evil and is uncivilised and brutal. Jury trial remains the cornerstone where justice is still seen to be done.
9.58 p.m.
Lord Adebowale: My Lords, my interest in the Bill comes from a professional and personal position. I should first declare my interest as chief executive of Turning Point. We work with people who have drug, alcohol and mental health problems. I want first to focus on the areas of community sentencing, mental health and substance misuse.
The recent criminalisation of the treatment agenda has created opportunities to engage with new and difficult drug users and this has resulted in a major expansion of services responding to referrals. However, I am concerned that that must not be at the expense of services and social care outside the criminal justice system.
At Turning Point we are committed to rehabilitation as a genuine alternative to prison. Problems with substances are overwhelmingly a health problem and should be treated as such. But let us be clear: the criminal justice interventions need to be shown to work. This means helping people come off drugs and reducing drug-related crime. We must therefore focus on the quality of treatment and outcomes and not just on the number of orders and

637
assessments. Above all, we must not squander good work by a lack of aftercare. Too often, people are released from prison or treatment programmes without housing, without employment opportunities and without crucial support, which results in relapse and re-offending. I seek reassurance that services are co-ordinated to care for people when they leave the criminal justice system.
Many who come into contact with the police have complex needs. I warmly welcome new court powers to enforce alcohol treatment requirements for offenders, but only if this is matched by new resources to deliver more alcohol treatment.
I am also pleased the Bill addresses mental health alongside drugs and alcohol use. These complex issues have always been difficult to treat outside the criminal justice system. I therefore seek assurances that mechanisms are put in place to facilitate better multi-disciplinary and cross-team working to address the needs of people with multiple challenges going through the criminal justice system.
Clause 12 of the Bill introduces for the first time police powers to test 14 to 17 year-olds for Class A drugs at the time they are charged with an offence while Clauses 154, 251 and 264 extend court powers to enforce drug treatment and testing orders as part of a drug rehabilitation requirement.
Moves to process young people through the criminal justice system into treatment will, I fear, put great strain on already stretched services and on youth offending teams. This may result in many young people being referred to adult services. I seek reassurances from the Government that testing and drug rehabilitation requirements for young people will not push young people into adult-based services.
For those with entrenched substance misuse problems, testing may be the only way of engaging with them but we must be sure to identify and engage with those who need help. The aim of testing at charge is to identify problem substance misusers and related crime and ultimately to provide suitable care. But I can see problems. Drug experimentation and occasional use are relatively common among adolescents. However, fewer than 1 per cent have ever used heroin or cocaine and even fewer are problem users. Therefore, testing for Class A drugs may be an ineffective way of identifying problem behaviours.
In addition, Class A drugs, such as heroin and cocaine, can be difficult to trace 24 hours after consumption while other problematic substances, such as benzodiazepines and alcohol, are not tested for at all under the Bill. Furthermore, not all Class A drugs are linked with dependence and crime, for example, LSD and ecstasy. I therefore seek safeguards that will ensure testing takes place only when a reasonable suspicion of dependency on a Class A drug and its relation to a crime exists.
638
We need to be clear that testing is carried out by trained staff and that it is appropriate to the crime and will benefit the arrestee. Above all, it must link in with other suitable services, such as Arrest Referral and specialist drug and alcohol services for young people.
Because of the specific needs of young people and concerns over testing, I urge assurance from the Government that they will develop pilots and timescales to improve the evidence and use this to inform guidelines.
As to drug rehabilitation requirements for all ages, I am concerned that the courts, as mentioned in Clause 201, will have discretion to include a mandatory court review hearing for those sentenced to less than 12 months. I strongly believe that the court review hearing should be mandatory for all requirements, especially among those on short sentences who may need more focused support. Experience shows that participants will respond positively to the involvement of the magistrate.
I move now to Clause 200 of the Bill. It suggests that either probation or the treatment provider should be responsible for determining treatment times.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the noble Lord, but in the gap the agreed time is four minutes.
10.4 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, perhaps I may add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. The noble Baroness is in a unique position to ensure that politics remain separate from judicial functions—a separation sadly lacking at the top level in the Home Office in recent days.
I do not object to the expression of the principles of our criminal justice system, but I do object to the unremitting attacks on our judiciary in recent days. That may raise applause at Police Federation meetings, but it does little to maintain public confidence in our criminal justice system. Public opinion is shaped by the quality of leadership that politicians offer. There has been much criticism of our judiciary, but we have heard little said about our system of justice, which is the envy of the rest of the world.
I shall avoid the temptation to pose many questions that noble Lords have already raised. Suffice it to say that there are important matters, especially those raised in the 11th report of Session 2002–03 of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published two days ago. They will require the Government's response, which, I trust, will be available before the Committee stage of the Bill.
Important contributions have been made to the debate, but none more important than that of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf. We need less political interference in our judiciary. Even at this stage, the Government will save valuable time if they can narrow the differences between the Home Secretary and the judiciary by appropriate

639
government amendments. I can promise that failure to do so will result in robust amendments from those of us on the Liberal Democrat Benches.
I glanced at the document placed in the Library by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice. It consists of 22 pages and about 70 paragraphs. The noble and learned Lord has given his evidence to the House of Lords. I now expect the Home Secretary's response to that document—before the Committee stage, I hope. That would help us to advance the debate.
The media play a substantial role in shaping the criminal justice debate. We have had two Home Secretaries since 1997. Is it not staggering that we have had 45 Home Office Acts between then and now? I suspect that the worst is still to come. As is often mentioned, the prison population now totals 73,000 inmates. It will be helpful to know what the rise in the prison population will be when the Bill is implemented. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, was right to seek that information.
At the heart of the Government, there is an insatiable appetite to promote legislation without giving previous legislation sufficient time to bed down. Like any Criminal Justice Bill, this one is a wide-ranging mixture of provision covering many aspects of criminal procedure, bail and sentencing. It contains provision that we welcome, including provision to help more witnesses to give evidence by live television link and a more sensible framework for short-term prison sentences, which has the potential greatly to improve the scope of rehabilitation of offenders.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn rightly mentioned the Children's Society's concern. There is a need for fundamental review of the system, especially in how we deal with justice for young people and children in England and Wales. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, also mentioned that. My noble friend Lady Linklater is right to point out—the noble Baroness, Lady Massey, supported this—that our Government's performance has been criticised by the United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child and successive reports from Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons.
We must ensure that the best interests of our children are at the heart of the youth justice system. We shall set out our concerns about that in Committee. That is in no way to take away from the great credit that attaches to the Youth Justice Board, whose work we certainly value.
The Bill also contains some fundamentally objectionable measures that will significantly increase the likelihood of wrongful convictions, greatly increase injustice in sentencing and produce a further, unsustainable rise in our already excessive prison population.
I propose to concentrate on three key issues. First, the greater scope for admission of defendants' previous convictions; secondly, the new minimum sentencing provisions and, thirdly, the
640
implementation of key parts of the Halliday report, including the new custody plus sentence, which received little attention in the debate.
I served as a magistrate for over 17 years. Unlike many noble Lords, I am aware of what happens in the retiring rooms. Prejudice often overtakes evidence produced in court. Things have improved substantially and now there is a proper framework in which to reach a decision, but the dangers always remain. Clauses 90 to 106, which will enable juries to be told of defendants' previous convictions in a much wider range of circumstances, are a recipe for serious injustice. They carry the real risk that people will be convicted because of their past record rather than on clear evidence that they committed the crime for which they are now charged.
Of course it is right that juries should know of defendants' previous offences if these have substantial probative value such as, for example, if the earlier offences demonstrate a modus operandi particular to the offender which was also used to commit the current crime. But the admittance of previous convictions simply because they are in the same category as the current offence is deeply objectionable. It will undoubtedly lead to wrongful convictions and will provide an incentive to prosecute suspects where the evidence that they committed the current offence is relatively weak.
Equally objectionable are the provisions for minimum sentences, both those relating to firearms offences in Clauses 271 to 276 and those relating to life sentence tariffs in Schedule 17. Minimum sentences are fundamentally wrong because they prevent judges from doing justice to offenders by tailoring the sentence to the individual circumstances of the case. They are wrong because they deter guilty pleas, unnecessarily put witnesses through the trauma of giving evidence and, because of the difficulties witnesses face, sometimes produce wrongful acquittals of offenders. In those cases the offenders will walk free, although they would have pleaded guilty if they had not been confronted with a draconian minimum sentence.
The proposed minimum tariffs for murder are also wrong because they introduce morally indefensible distinctions between different types of murders. They will rapidly bring sentencing into disrepute, just as the distinctions between different types of murder in the Homicide Act 1957 hastened the end of the death penalty because of their flagrant injustice.
Why is shooting someone necessarily morally worse than stabbing them to death? Why is killing a police officer necessarily morally worse than killing a security guard or a bank clerk? Why is a murder for an ideological motive necessarily worse than one for personal financial gain? Why is a killing for financial gain necessarily worse than one committed for revenge?
In the case of whole-life tariffs, Parliament will require judges to deprive offenders of any possible hope of release, whatever changes they may go through by way of remorse, repentance, personal

641
change, the influence of other people or the ageing process. They will condemn the Prison Service to cope with a growing number of prisoners deprived of all hope and with little to lose. What objective does prison hold for this group of people? When I visited prisons in the United States of America in the company of the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle of Bucklow, when he was looking at the parole system review, it became clear that violence, murder and male rape became endemic because there was no hope for many inmates in federal prisons. There is a danger that our prisons could actually explode.
The minimum tariffs and high starting points for murder and the minimum sentences for gun crime will have another effect. They are almost certain to have a knock-on effect, leading to a ratcheting up of sentences for other crimes so that the differential between them does not appear excessively wide. The noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, was right to point that out. This country already has the highest proportion of its population in prison of any nation in western Europe. Our Prison Service is struggling to cope with a record rising and excessively overcrowded prison population.
Overcrowding and overstretch in our prisons is not a sensible way of combating crime. It makes it much harder to provide rehabilitative prison regimes which can reduce a prisoner's chances of re-offending on release. It means that many thousands of prisoners are continually shifted around the country—a point made by the noble Baroness. Lady Stern—to any prison which has a space available, interrupting their progress on educational and offending behaviour courses and seriously damaging family relationships—yet these are things that we should be protecting because of their crucial role in reducing offending.
The purpose of prison is to rehabilitate, to provide treatment and medical models, not to act as a recipient of a bankrupt criminal justice system which cannot distinguish between assisting individuals to live useful lives rather than containing them for an indefinite period.
In contrast, there is much to welcome in Part 12 of the Bill, most of which restructures the sentencing framework in line with the provisions of John Halliday's thoughtful report, Making Punishments Work.
The new custody plus sentence created by Clause 174 will require prison sentences of under 12 months to combine a short period in prison with a period of post-release supervision in the community. This is a far more sensible approach than the current system whereby many offenders are imprisoned for short periods, during which little, if anything, is done to rehabilitate them. They are then released without supervision, or support. Most longer term prisoners, other than those subject to the new provisions for dangerous offenders in Chapter 5 of Part 12, will be released to spend the second half of their sentences under a longer period of post-release supervision than currently applies to released prisoners. This will produce greater certainty for many long-term
642
prisoners, enabling better planning for release, and will increase public protection because of the longer supervision period.
All this is welcome. However, I wish to enter three caveats in relation to the new sentencing framework. The first relates to Clause 136(2), which is designed to bring about stiffer sentences for persistent offenders by requiring courts to treat each previous conviction as an aggravating factor. Courts already take into account offenders' previous records in deciding on the severity of sentences. To provide in this way for a greater increase in penalties for repeat offenders will do little, if anything, to reduce crime but will undesirably increase the prison population.
The second caveat is the risk that even some welcome changes in the sentencing framework could have the undesirable consequence of increasing the prison population if courts use them in the wrong way. For example, if courts use the new custody plus sentence for those who now get a short prison sentence it will produce beneficial results. However, courts could alternatively use custody plus for offenders who now receive community sentences, thereby increasing the prison population. There is also a risk of a much larger number of offenders being returned to prison for breach of their supervision conditions because there will be an increase both in the number of offenders under supervision and in the length of supervision periods.
Whether courts use this provision in a way that reduces or increases the prison population depends in part on the general climate to which courts feel they are responding. The Government's partiality to tough rhetoric is one of the key factors that has undoubtedly fuelled the rise in the prison population as courts feel that they need to respond to a more punitive climate.
It also depends in part on the sentencing guidelines that emerge from the new Sentencing Guidelines Council created by Clause 160. The Halliday report suggests that the face value of sentences might be scaled down in recognition of the fact that the content of many sentences would be more meaningful and that post-prison supervision would last to the very end of the face-value sentence.
The report states:
"The proposed new sentencing guidelines should not assume that existing norms for sentence length would be equally punitive in the new framework, or that the existing custody rate would be equally appropriate".
The Government would increase the chances of such an outcome if they dropped their wrong-headed proposals for minimum sentencing, which are likely to have an opposite ratcheting-up effect on sentencing guidelines.
My third caveat relates to resources. If the new provisions are to work effectively they will require substantial resources, not only for the Probation Service but also—and I declare an interest here as chair of Nacro—for the voluntary sector. As the Halliday report points out:
"Involving voluntary organisations in areas like employment, housing and mentoring will be essential, to reduce risks of re-offending.

643
How that should be done—independently or within contracts or service level agreements with statutory services—is beyond the scope of this review; but if all provision for offenders under sentence were to be made through statutory services, it would be desirable to have a substantial component for funded partnerships with voluntary organisations".
I hope that the Minister will be able to assure us that these provisions will be accompanied by a substantial increase in resources for voluntary sector partnership.
The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, made an important point in relation to Victim Support. Over 4,000 dedicated, trained volunteers, providing services in the courts to victims and witnesses, are well aware of the many adversarial contacts between victims and the criminal justice system. The independence of Victim Support provides the credibility and confidence that victims appreciate. I trust that the Minister will resist any attempt to devolve the funding to the local criminal justice boards.
Despite those caveats, the overall framework proposed by the Halliday report and enacted by the Bill is more rational than the present framework. If it were accompanied by adequate resources, the abandonment of the misguided provisions for minimum sentences, and a genuine effort by the Government to sell to courts and to the public the merits of a more sparing use of prison sentences, it could provide much greater scope to reduce reoffending by effectively rehabilitating offenders.
10.21 p.m.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: My Lords, this has been a valuable debate. It has not been conducted in a party political atmosphere—very much the opposite. It has demonstrated the range of expertise to be found in all parts of this House. It is the best possible answer to Mr Hain's outrageous comment on this morning's Today programme that all we ever do in this House is engage in "perpetual filibuster". I hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will pass to Mr Hain a copy of today's Hansard.
We have had 28 very good contributions. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Lloyd of Berwick, was unable to deliver his speech. We look forward to his speedy recovery and to reading his speech on some future occasion.
I, too, add my congratulations to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor on his appointment. He has a very difficult act to follow. We on this side of the House have on many occasions paid tribute to the reforming zeal of his predecessor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, who contributed a great deal during his time as Lord Chancellor.
I should also inform the noble and learned Lord that, during his temporary absence from the Chamber, the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, told us that he did not intend to continue with this Bill. I am a little confused about that statement, because he did not mention that he was now exiting the Bill. Perhaps the noble Baroness will explain whether or not the noble and learned Lord has been granted an absolute or conditional discharge from the Bill.
644
He will no doubt hear that considerable concern has been expressed from all sides of the House about a number of provisions in the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, spoke with all the authority that she has gained with Penal Reform International of what she described as her "grave anxiety". But he is greatly assisted by the very welcome promotion of the new Minister of State, the Minister for Criminal Justice and Reform. We welcome her in that new capacity. I would not go quite as far as the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in describing her as a buffer—undoubtedly a young rather than an old buffer—but I thought that the noble Lord was quickly assisted by his noble friend Lady Linklater of Butterstone, who described the noble Baroness as a beautiful butter.
Noble Lords: Buffer!
Lord Hunt of Wirral: A similar mishearing came from the Lord Chief Justice who I thought was congratulating the noble Baroness on her probation. But he quickly recovered himself to refer to her promotion, which I am sure is what he said.
My tribute to the noble Baroness is reinforced by the fact that she has remained in the Chamber throughout every speech. That is much appreciated.
We have a Criminal Justice Bill which leaves few areas of criminal evidence, procedure and sentencing untouched. The Bill has 307 clauses and 32 schedules, totalling 374 pages. We can well understand why the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, first referred to it as a monstrous Bill. It is certainly a monumental Bill, as he quickly recovered himself to express.
Although the Bill is one of the most prominent and controversial of the Government's reforms, I think it is a matter of considerable regret that this Chamber should be debating it for the first time on 16th June. There is a huge amount of work to do, yet the Bill has arrived so late in the parliamentary year. In fact, the Government added 34 clauses and six schedules, as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew, pointed out, at Report stage in the House of Commons. Several of those clauses were not even debated in another place. The first opportunity to scrutinise them will be in this Chamber and we are told that there is more to come.
As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, pointed out, there are two volumes of the Bill and 14 parts. I agree with those noble Lords who said that many of us have curtailed our comments to fit in to a one-day debate. How much better it would have been if we had had a two-day debate. There is certainly enough material here to justify that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, sped through the Bill. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, estimated that he had covered 26 clauses a minute. He had time to outline only the details. He had no time to explain why the provisions were being introduced, to give arguments in favour of each proposal, to outline what the objectives were and to say what the Government believe will be the overall impact of the measures. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, made a very

645
important point when he asked what the effect of the Bill would be on the size of the prison population. We are still awaiting the answer to that question.
After 12 criminal justice Bills from the Government, this massive new Bill must be an admission of failure. But we broadly welcome many of the reforms. I would not go so far as to accuse the Government, as the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, did, of having a drunken romance with modernisation or to describe it as a disgraceful assault on civil liberties. I leave the noble Baroness to justify those comments. But it was right of the noble Lord. Lord Dholakia, to remind us that the report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights, published only last Friday, says that the Bill being introduced to this House is,
"far larger and more far reaching"
than that originally introduced in another place. The report also says that,
"the range of human rights issues is considerably wider",
and concludes that,
"there are risks of violations of human rights",
in relation to eight separate matters. These will require very careful consideration in Committee.
Serious concerns have been raised on important matters of principle. I should like to deal with sentencing in particular. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, in a convincing defence of the present system, can always be relied upon to find the most appropriate extracts from Government White Papers. He demonstrated the concern felt on all sides of the House at the concentration of powers in the Home Office. However, since the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor, spoke, my noble friend Lady Anelay, in an outstanding contribution, suggested a way forward in sentencing that has been endorsed in a vitally important speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, the Lord Chief Justice. They suggested that the members of the Sentencing Guidelines Council should be drawn only from the judiciary and their recommendations should be scrutinised by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses. That would strike the right balance between democratic accountability and the independence of the judiciary. The noble Lord, Lord Chan, reminded us of the importance of the separate and independent Sentencing Advisory Panel on which he serves with such distinction.
As the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, pointed out, and as my noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew referred to, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice has placed in the Library a valuable supplementary note fleshing out the arguments put forward in his speech that was a devastating critique of the Government's proposals. My noble and learned friend Lord Mayhew drew attention to paragraph 56, referring to the new figures:
"the new figures were not based on any advice from the Sentencing Advisory Panel. They were not the subject of any public consultation.".
There is much more in the document that we need to scrutinise and we shall ensure that in Committee every one of the points raised in the paper is properly dealt
646
with. Importantly, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was speaking not only on his own behalf, but those views were supported without dissent at the meeting of the Lord Justices who preside in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division.
In the meantime, I hope that the Government will think again about their proposals. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, reminded us that there must be no misunderstanding of the position of the judiciary. He said in his important contribution that judges are not mere bean counters. I recall that I put to the noble Baroness on a previous occasion a quotation from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine of Lairg, the previous Lord Chancellor, who said:
"To put legislative strait-jackets on the judge's discretion to sentence for serious crimes is almost always a mistake".
Sadly, that is a mistake that the Government appear to be making. We are grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Woolf, for his intervention. We accept his suggestion that this House should be the arbiter of the arguments being put forward.
We have also had an interesting debate on the purpose of punishment. I do not wish to blight the career of the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate, but I have heard speeches similar his being cheered to the rafters at Conservative Party conferences. I confess that I agreed more with the arguments of my noble friend Lord Carlisle of Bucklow. The chance of rehabilitation or reform must be one of the main aims. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater of Butterstone, was right to stress the need for an enormous increase in money and resources for the magistrates and the Probation Service. As well as her powerful plea for compassion, the noble Baroness made an important contribution on the way that we treat children—as did the noble Baroness, Lady Massey of Darwen, when she referred to Article 37( b) of the UN Convention. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn also reminded us that we needed a fundamental re-examination of the purpose of punishment. I agree with him that we need to make the balance right. For example, the THOMAS project would not succeed if the participants were only involved through coercion and compulsion.
My noble friend Lord Windlesham mentioned the vital importance of victim support. I hope that the Government will look again at a policy which he warned would otherwise sweep victim support out of the courts. We had interesting contributions from the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, with all his experience in Turning Point, pointing out the need for co-ordinated services as people leave the criminal justice system. The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, has much experience with the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders. I think that he has been on the council and the chairman for almost 20 years. He reminded us of some of the vital issues in that respect.
I should like to conclude by referring to the very important debate on trial by jury. Many speakers from all sides of the House have been united in their wish to oppose the provisions on jury trial. I do hope that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and his

647
colleagues will think again. The noble Lord, Lord Brennan, reminded us of the importance of jury trial in our participatory democracy. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, with a degree of support from all sides, said that juries do get it right. The independence of a jury's verdict has been established for 800 years, certainly since the Bushel's case in 1670.
In this debate there have been many strong advocates of jury trial and some very valuable evidence that people overwhelming trust juries as part of a representative justice system. The noble Baroness, Lady Gibson of Market Rasen, gave us some valuable evidence in that direction. The noble Baroness, Lady Mallalieu, also reminded us that there is no popular pressure to restrict jury trial as the Government intend.
The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that jury trial would be a central principle of our system. That may be so, but we are all very concerned, as my noble friend Lady Seccombe pointed out, that the Bill makes serious inroads into that principle. The House is right to be suspicious of the Government's intentions. On several previous occasions, as noble Lords have reminded us, the Government have brought forward measures to remove jury trial for less serious offences. Defeated on those occasions, they have now done a complete about-turn and wish to abolish jury trial for some serious cases. Many noble Lords have explained why that is wrong even if there is a risk of jury tampering. I say to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Haringey, that although his concern over cost was understood, I believe that most noble Lords feel that the £9 million to which he referred was money very well spent.
My noble friend Lord Renton brings to the debate 50 years as a Queen's Counsel—more even than the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner, who, having had only 43 years as a QC, pales into insignificance. I say to my noble friend that I hope he will reflect on his view that jury trials are inappropriate if the trial is to last more than two weeks. I also think that his point on special juries is quite a dangerous road down which we might go.
The Government have made a virtue of sweeping away centuries of tradition and history. I believe that they incur the wrath of this House and of the majority of British people when they seek to sweep away long-established civil liberties. Many have pointed out that the prison population has now increased to more than 70,000. Five years after the Prime Minister said that he would be tough on crime, a crime is now committed every five seconds. Common sense demands that surely the right way ahead, as the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids, reminded us, is to increase the chances of detection and proper detection. Removing basic human rights is not the answer.
Last year the Prime Minister said that our criminal justice systems seemed,
"cumbersome, out of date and therefore often ineffectual in convicting the guilty".
648
How interesting that he did not use the phrase "allegedly guilty". It is up to this House to remind the Government that the accused is still presumed innocent.
This debate has shown a quite necessary and proper desire to protect at all costs the civil liberties of the innocent. Like my fellow solicitor, the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, I want to see a Bill that is firm and fair. The noble Lord, Lord Ahmed, reminded us how important it is that the criminal justice system represents every member of the public. So if we are to retain public confidence in the criminal justice system, then we must ensure that the system ensures justice, reason and humanity, as put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan. Tough on crime, yes; but rough on justice, no.
10.40 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I rise with great pleasure to respond to the very exciting debate that we have had on the Bill. I thank all noble Lords who have given both myself and my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor compliments about our new appointments.
I also take this opportunity to endorse every word in relation to the compliments that were paid to my noble and learned friend Lord Irvine of Lairg. We shall see his thumbprint indelibly on the British constitution and on justice for many years to come. This House and this country have much to thank him for.
The baton that he had has now passed to my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer. A strange thing happens with batons. They are passed on in their turn, and therefore my noble and learned friend has passed his baton on to me. Having passed it on, he lets the next person in the relay run on her own.
There have been many injunctions given by many noble Lords. The noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, says that the law has to be firm but fair. My noble friend Lord Brennan reminds us that any reform has to take place within reason, justice and importantly humanity. My noble friend Lady Mallalieu also underscores the importance of not allowing the scales of justice to tilt against the innocent in a way that is unjust. It is right and proper that the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, with his usual prescience, reminds us that while hating the sin there has to be room for loving the sinner.
All those injunctions are borne in mind by the Government. They are not intemperate in the way in which they move forward, as indeed the debate has not been intemperate. All noble Lords have addressed their minds with great seriousness to the important issues with which we deal. We have had a wide-ranging and fascinating debate. It presages a thorough scrutiny in the months to come. If anyone believes that this House will not do its duty he or she will be gravely mistaken. Virtually every noble Lord who has spoken had the joy of sharing with me the Courts Bill so I see many old friends on the Benches.
I am sure that noble Lords will know that having taken up this baton only recently, it would be inappropriate for me to seek to address each and every

649
nuance that will doubtless delight us through the many days in Committee. We have now had six hours of debate and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, is right to say that I have listened to virtually every single word. The Government, as my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has said, will continue to listen to what the House has to say.
I genuinely look forward to the challenge of working with noble Lords through the detail of the Bill in Committee and responding to points made in relation to it. The thirst for reform within the bounds of reason, justice and humanity is very much shared by my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. The goal is the same, although the route may differ. We shall listen and explore the provisions and seek to chart the fairest and most balanced course. Therefore, I welcome the warm support that I received from my noble friend Lord Harris, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, and my noble friend Lady Gibson among many others. The noble Baroness, Lady Anelay, was gracious enough to outline her support in many areas. I would say to the noble Lord, Lord Renton, do not sup too closely with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Independence of view is still very much valued.
The debate has therefore confirmed that there is support for many of the Bill's provisions, and that in other areas there may be scope to reach agreement. We are very willing to explore that end. This can be seen as a valiant attempt to improve the criminal procedure as expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Renton. It is a Herculean task, and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State understands the nature of that task. No one has suggested that our current system is without flaw and complexity; the contrary is indeed true. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice spoke powerfully about that complexity. We must bear in mind that the changes we propose seek to ensure that adequate safeguards are in place in respect of the proposed amendments of PACE relating to detention and detainees' property safeguards. We shall bring forward amendments to Clause 9 to retain the affirmative resolution procedure for the new PACE codes and the significant revision of existing PACE codes.
My noble friend Lord Ahmed and my noble friend Lady Howells, whom I specifically thank for her warm compliment, have voiced their concerns that the stop and search provisions in Clause 1 and the provision at Clause 284 for the detention of terrorists will have disproportionate impact on minorities, ethnic communities and Muslims. The impact of stop and search more generally on minority ethnic communities is being addressed by a draft revised code A, including recommendation 61 from the Stephen Lawrence report which is being phased in in selected sites to discover how it may best work. Safeguards are also built into the Terrorism Act that will apply to the amendment in Clause 284. The Government have agreed with the CRE to undertake race relations impact assessments of key provisions of the Bill while it is still in your Lordships' House and before they are implemented.
650
One intemperate note was perhaps struck by my noble friend Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, whom all will know I greatly admire for her passion, tenacity and advocacy. We have been friends for a very long time—I think we share the distinction with my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor of all taking Silk on the same day. I should remind her that I have never imbibed alcohol, and that I do not intend to take up the practice now—so there will be no drunken romance for me. However, there will be—as there has been to date—a measured response to what is proposed so that, I hope together, we will be able to fashion a system worthy of the people of our country. As many noble Lords have said, that will demand a balanced, proportionate response, taking into consideration the fears and anxieties put so powerfully by several noble Lords, not least my noble friend, Lord Mackenzie and others on the other end of the scale who feel with equal passion that this balance should be not be obtained for other reasons. Balance must be our key word if we are to get this right.
The noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, raised some important points about the criminal justice interventions linked with substance misuse. That is an important theme, running through the Bill. The noble Lord was right to express concern about the growing need for such interventions to occur at an earlier stage and was rightly concerned that testing and drug rehabilitation requirements for young people might push young people into adult-based services. I am glad to confirm that that is not our intention.
The provisions relating to young people will be piloted on a limited basis at first. In the mean time, we are busy expanding the treatment facilities available to young people. The Youth Justice Board is providing funding for all 155 youth offending teams across England and Wales to have access to an allocated, named drugs worker. By April 2004, all young people, including young offenders who need it, will have access to treatment. The National Treatment Agency has allocated £15 million from its pooled budget for this work in 2003 and 2004.
I shall not be able to deal with all matters in such detail, but I turn now to the comments made by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, particularly on the issues relating to how that package will be put together. She raised the issue of resources. I can reassure the noble Baroness that we certainly do not intend that the new sentences should lead to an upward sentencing drift and increases in the prison population. With respect to the generic community sentences, although there is a risk that sentencers will use the variety of requirements to increase conditions, they must do so within strict principles of proportionality. The Probation Service will inform sentencers in its reports of the appropriate selection. Furthermore, the Sentencing Guidelines Council will be in a position to issue guidelines on its application for certain offences. The judiciary will be properly trained in the new provisions.
We are providing an important menu—something form which judges will be better able to pick the solution—the punishment—which best fits the crime,

651
but also with a view to helping to ensure that offending does not continue after whatever sentence is imposed is served. It is easy to pick out individual components, but we must look at the scheme holistically. That is relevant to what I shall say later in answering the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, in relation to persistent offenders. The Courts Bill will, we hope, strengthen the effectiveness of tines and their imposition so that, contrary to the concerns raised, fines will become a better tool in the armoury of the sentencer than has been the case historically.
Many noble Lords indicated that they are opposed to the provisions in Part 7 on trials without jury. I know that that will be an area of intense debate in Committee. We have had some powerful speeches on this from a number of my noble friends, including Lord Brennan, Lady Kennedy of The Shaws, Lady Mallalieu and my good friend Lord Clinton-Davis, joined by the noble and learned Lords, Lord Mayhew and Lord Ackner, the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, to name but a few.
We understand the nature and the force of the comments made, but my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor indicated in his opening speech that the Government are not attacking the basic principle of jury trial, which we believe should remain the norm for serious cases. However, it is right that the arrangements for juries should be kept under review. Whenever a change to jury trail has been proposed, there have been strong objections which have proved, in time, not to have been well founded. For example, in 1967, reform to allow majority verdicts was opposed by critics who argued that it would lead to injustice. Few would make that claim today. Removing the defendant's right to peremptory challenge of jurors was also the subject of controversy. Again, there is no evidence to suggest that that has led to unfair trials.
The proposals that we are bringing forward in the Bill will affect only a small number of cases. They are intended to protect juries from intimidation and from the excessive burden and intrusion on their lives that long fraud trials can involve, and to improve the real difficulties of managing those kinds of trial. I am sure we will be debating those issues in great detail in Committee.
The issue of retrial of serious offences had a similar impact on the speeches of a number of noble Lords. My noble friend Lady Howells expressed concern about that, together with my noble friend Lady Mallalieu and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle. The noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, gave some graphic examples of the type of cases where justice may demand that the issue be looked at again. We will have to grapple with that important issue and look at it very seriously. The people of our country will demand that we do that.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, made a very interesting suggestion, if I may respectfully say so, for proceeding in the exceptional cases where retrial is justified without quashing the acquittal, and on the basis of a broader test relying on
652
the Court of Appeal's discretion. The House will have an opportunity to look more closely at the detail of that in Committee, but the Government's view is that it is necessary to quash an acquittal in order to proceed with a fresh indictment and a retrial, and that the criteria guiding such proceedings should be clearly set out in statute. We need to debate that.
The issue of evidence caused huge anxiety. Almost all noble Lords expressed concern about the provisions in Chapter 1 of Part 11. The Government's view is that we should allow previous convictions to be admitted by judges where relevant to the issues in the trial; that is, where they will assist jurors to understand the case and reach a proper and fair decision. Judges will have the power to exclude that material where they think that it would be given undue weight and where its prejudicial effect would outweigh its probative value. The criteria in Clauses 92 and 93, and the exclusionary test in relation to defendants, provide a balanced approach that enables courts to hear evidence that has a proper bearing on the case, while excluding that which would be too prejudicial. We do not agree that that risks compromising the right to a fair trial.
The noble Lord, Lord Chan, made the interesting suggestion that there should an independent element in making scientific assessments. That is something that we really need to think about.
I turn now to the issues raised at Part 12 of the Bill, which deals with sentencing. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Ackner, Lord Donaldson and the Lord Chief Justice, and the noble Lord, Lord Carlisle, spoke powerfully on that issue. Parliament is not seeking to impose the eventual sentence that judges will hand down. Judges should never be reduced to mere bean counters, as has been suggested, and that is not what we propose. The noble and learned Lords, Lord Mayhew and the Lord Chief Justice, were correct in highlighting that the current sentencing framework has not been as successful as it could have been in reducing reoffending. That is partly because of the muddled legacy that has grown up in this area since 1991, and the inconsistencies and complexities that have resulted from the gradual erosion of the 1991 framework through piecemeal change. It is also because the sentences themselves, custodial and community, have not been effective at correcting offending behaviour. We need to look at those figures.
Although performance has improved, the figures that were given by a number of noble Lords are clearly still too high. That is why we are seeking to redesign sentences so that we can build more effectively on development in what works in crime reduction and focus more exclusively on rehabilitation. We do have an issue in terms of the inconsistency of application across the country, which we must address.
The issue raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chief Justice was central to this debate. He made it clear that there was a parting of the ways in terms of what the Government proposed and what the judges felt was right. We must address that area together to ensure we get it right.

653
That is one of the reasons for creating the new Sentencing Guidelines Council, which will issue a consolidated set of sentencing guidelines on all offences and on general matters affecting sentencing, which must be taken into account by all criminal courts. That will also go some way towards making the sentencing framework more transparent and accessible to the public and practitioners. That is another key goal of our sentencing reforms.
We do not see the current sentencing framework as a straitjacket that will make it inaccessible. That is the result of a large volume of statutes, at least eight since 1991, most of which amend each other, and an equally
654
large volume of case law, which is conveniently set out in Thomas' Encyclopaedia on sentencing. On top of that, an interesting inquiry would be directed to the magistrates' courts sentencing guidelines. All of that must be clarified.
There are so many issues on which I would have wished to respond more fully. I shall certainly write to noble Lords about those matters. However, I envisage that my taste of the Criminal Justice Bill is only just beginning.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
House adjourned at two minutes past eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Local Government Bill
  (Fifth Day)
  Monday, 16th June 2003.
  The Committee met at ten minutes before five of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Haskel): Perhaps I should explain to the Committee that there is no need to touch the microphones. The engineer will do all of that. As we are not expecting any votes in the main Chamber, we will not need to know the regulations regarding that.
  Clause 68 [Exemptions for agricultural buildings]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 141:
  Page 33, line 39, at end insert—
  "For paragraph 2(1)(a) (which defines agricultural land) there is substituted—"(a) land used only or mainly as arable, meadow or pasture ground,"."
  In moving Amendment No. 141, I shall speak briefly to Amendments Nos. 142 and 143.
  I start with Amendment No. 141. At present, land used exclusively for agriculture is exempt from non-domestic rates. Agricultural land is defined as land used only as arable, meadow or pasture ground. There is a de minimis exemption permitting land to be used to a limited extent for other purposes and still to qualify for the exemption. The valuation officer takes that as being activities that do not last for more than one day at a time, without an intervening period of agricultural use. For example, one day's point-to-point with horses will not prevent the exemption from applying, although three days might.
  That may have been satisfactory when a farmer was only a farmer and did not need to use his land for anything else. However, it does not reflect present realities. Few farmers can expect to make a living purely from the land. As the Government have recognised, farmers must diversify into other activities, if they are to survive. That was in the rural White Paper of 2002. It is unfortunate that many farmers are inhibited from diversifying by the rating system. At present, if a farmer chooses to do something on his land even occasionally with a view to raising extra income, he runs the risk that, by doing so, he will lose his exemption from rating and, so, the incentive to diversify.
  We are not asking for farmers to be permitted to do anything and still qualify. The requirement will still be that land is used "only or mainly" for agriculture. We
  GC 180
  are asking that they might be allowed to do slightly more than the one day—at times—diversification, as at present.
  Amendment No. 142 brings us to the matter of other common agricultural uses, including poultry farming, which are included in the definition of agriculture for the purposes of the exemption from non-domestic rating. Amendment No. 142 would, in the interests of consistency, bring game farming within the exemption. In accordance with the Government's insistence that farmers and landowners diversify from their traditional methods of earning money, it is increasingly common for them to move into game farming. However, game farming does not come within the definition of agriculture. There is no obvious reason for that: we assume that it is just a reflection of common agricultural practices, when the General Rate Act was introduced in 1967. If so, it is out of date.
  Moreover, the Government increasingly treat game farming as if it were akin to conventional poultry farming. For example, the recent Diseases of Poultry (England) Order 2003 extended the definition of poultry in the Animal Health Act 1981 to most species of game bird. It is appropriate that both activities be treated the same for rating purposes.
  The final amendment is Amendment No. 143. In addition to the exemption for agricultural land, there is an exemption for agricultural buildings used with that land. The amendment would apply the principle relating to agricultural land, as expressed in the first amendment, to agricultural buildings. Again, there is an exemption that permits a level of non-agricultural use, but that is not entirely satisfactory.
  Paragraph 8(3) of Schedule 5 states that, 'when deciding whether a building is used "solely",
  "no account is taken of any time during which it is used in another way, if that time does not amount to a substantial part of the time".
  That applies only to time; it does not apply to extent. For example, exemption would apply if a barn were occasionally given over entirely to use as a shop. It would not apply if a small area of that farm were used permanently as a shop. It is hard to see the justification for the distinction. I beg to move.
  Earl Peel: I apologise for intervening at such a late stage in Committee, but, as somebody with rural interests, I thought that it might be appropriate for me to say a few words in support of my noble friend's amendments.
  As my noble friend said, in general terms it is clear that the traditional role of the farmer is changing rapidly. All the encouragement from government and from the various agencies is designed to help farmers to diversify as much as possible to overcome the great difficulties that they face if they are engaged in traditional agricultural systems. Any help that we can give to farmers in that direction will, I am sure, be supported by the Minister. Amendments Nos. 141 and 143 would deal specifically with those points.

  GC 181
  My noble friend raised another point—the other side of the argument, which is equally important. If a farmer chooses to do something on his land—or, presumably, in his buildings, which are de-rated—even occasionally, he runs the risk of jeopardising the de-rating concessions that he has. We must consider both issues carefully, and I support the principle behind the amendments.
  I shall deal more specifically with Amendment No. 142, which is concerned with what I regard as the anomaly that game farmers are subjected to rates when those producing poultry are not. Most observers generally believe that, when the Local Government Act was passed in 1986, there was no intention to discriminate against game farmers. Poultry farming was included in the definition of agriculture, but game farming was not specifically excluded. It was a genuine mistake. The game farmers are losing out simply by default, rather than by any prescribed or determined intention of the government of the time.
  The two activities are broadly comparable. There are those who produce game in the spring and summer, and poultry—turkeys, for example—for the winter. They pay rates on one activity but not on the other. That is something of an anomaly. Interestingly enough. fish farmers are exempt. I am sure that the Minister will be aware of that. That is another example showing why game farmers have been treated unfairly.
  There is another point that, as, I am sure, the Committee will appreciate, creates a great deal of ill-feeling. French game farmers are exempt. They export a lot of game to this country, and our game farmers reckon that they are being badly treated on that front, as the Minister will, no doubt, appreciate. That situation seriously disadvantages our game farmers, when the Government are striving wholeheartedly to get an even playing field in trade with European countries.
  My noble friend mentioned another important point. Game farmers, as well as poultry farmers, are subjected to all the new regulations on nitrate vulnerable zones, control of diseases, feedstuffs and animal by-products and waste. Game farmers are now covered by all the directives in the same way as poultry farmers. Some equality is required in the rating system.
  I hope that the Minister can accept that the arguments for not providing rate relief for game farmers are spurious. If justice is to be upheld, the Minister will accept my noble friend's amendments.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock: I support the sentiments behind the amendments and concur with much of what was said in support of them. I am a member of Sub-Committee D of the Select Committee on the European Union, which deals with agriculture. In recent months, I have become well acquainted with many of the issues facing farmers, particularly the way in which they are regulated. In trying to deal, in
  GC 182
  particular, with environmental legislation, we are considering the whole-farm approach. The amendments tackle part of that issue.
  Flexibility is important for its own sake. If we are too rigid in saying what can be agricultural land and what cannot for the purposes of the Bill, that would not be helpful to developments in agriculture, particularly sustainability and reform of the common agricultural policy.
  If the farm shop were only part of something, I would have a certain sympathy with Amendment No. 143. However, I have one question. Many butcher's shops and greengrocer's shops have disappeared from our town centres. I can see people asking, "Why is that farmer getting rate relief on his shop, when I am finding it so difficult to keep going in the town centre?". In my town, one of the local farmers has taken over the butcher's shop on one street. Perhaps that is the answer. I do not know whether the Government have considered that issue or whether those who tabled the amendment have any views on it. We hear about ordinary shopkeepers worrying about charities getting relief on rates, and I can see that there could be a little conflict there. Otherwise. I support the sentiments behind the amendments.
  Lord Monro of Langholm: I also support the amendments. Noble Lords who attended the debate last Wednesday on the countryside will have realised how concerned Members were to encourage the rural economy and keep employment in the countryside. Bearing in mind the huge overall outlay of rateable values, this is a tiny aspect that could be very valuable to a few people dotted about the countryside who wish to rear game.
  There are many jargon words in agriculture, and a lot of them were floating about last Wednesday. "Diversification" has been a common one for years, and everyone is trying to think up ways of using agricultural land and buildings to provide income and keep employment in the countryside. Sometimes, it does not work. My neighbour started making goat's milk cheese, but, as soon as he put in a little plant, it immediately became industrially rated. That seemed a bit harsh. It ended a good scheme before it really got started.
  We have an opportunity to help people start rearing game birds in small units throughout the countryside and to help those that are already in being—they are very important—by giving them a concession on rates. After all, we accept set-aside—using fields for no purpose—which seems like a strange thing to a farmer. The departments of agriculture in England, Scotland and, I am sure, Wales are happy to leave fairly large strips of land on either side of hedges to give birds a chance to nest naturally. Here, we have an opportunity to put a small part of the average farm or estate to good use in rearing birds for country sports.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, rightly used the word "flexible". I hope that we will be prepared to be flexible and give some people a little hope of a substantial return without any great loss of rates to the

  GC 183
  local authority. Given the Minister's conciliatory attitude at the end of the previous sitting, I am sure that he will continue the good work.
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): Like the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, I am sympathetic to the spirit of most of the amendments, even though I have to resist them.
  The noble Earl, Lord Peel, is quite right about the regulations that affect people these days, particularly in respect of meat hygiene. I have to say that when I am in my own car, I sometimes give a cheer—and not a silent cheer—when I drive past a butcher's shop in the country and see all the game and everything else hanging outside, and not stuck inside in the fridge. I think, "Ah, the environmental health officers haven't caught up with them yet". The point is that if the meat matures nicely—as it has done for 100 years—and is looked after properly, it will be perfectly safe. I am well aware that that is how the game works. On the other hand, we should not have a problem in respect of competition with French farmers.
  I realised how ignorant I was when I looked at the rest of the definitions in the schedule to which Members of the Committee have referred. I thought that guinea fowl, pigeons and quails might be game, but they are classified as poultry. We are talking only about pheasant, partridge, grouse and black game—and about something that I am not sure how to pronounce, although I have no doubt that all the country people opposite will tell me how to do so. My noble friend and I have never eaten, let alone seen, one. It is spelt p-t-a-r-m-i-g-a-n. I presume that the "t" is silent. Well, someone knows what it is.
  No one involved in game production for food will pay rates, so they should win hands down over French farmers. They do not have a problem—they will be rate-free. If they are supplying local shops and local people with game and that is the purpose of their production, they will not pay rates. However, we are discussing a slightly different issue.
  The amendments would extend the rating exemption for agricultural land and buildings. However, the intention in Clause 68 is to amend the rating system to reflect modern farming practices and ensure that the exemption from rates is targeted in relation to the ancillary activities, such as food processing and packaging operations, where occupiers of related agricultural land control the company.
  Under the provisions of the Local Government Finance Act 1988, agricultural land and building used for the production of food and the rearing of livestock for food are exempt from non-domestic rates. Agricultural land or buildings used for other purposes —for example, the rearing of animals intended to be used for leisure or sporting activities, farm shops or food storage —are not exempt and are liable for rates. I fully accept that the by-products of sport may be game for sale, but it is still a by-product. If the farm is a game farm and its production is for food purposes, farmers will not pay rates.
  GC 184
  The decision as to whether a game farm should be rated rests with the local valuation officer, who has statutory responsibility for maintaining the rating list. I suspect that that varies throughout the country, however. I talked to someone yesterday who is well into retirement but who used to be a farm secretary—I will not say where, but at three large farms. The farms were basically arable, but one of them was involved in game production. The ex-secretary said that, because of the nature of the job, no rates were paid. I said, "So, there was no sport", and he said, "Well, there was quite a good income from shooting as well".
  The situation depends on the local rating officer. If the overwhelming purpose of the production was the production of food, and sport was ancillary to it, as opposed to the other way round, any reasonable person would argue that they should be exempt from rates. However, that is a matter for the local valuation officer. There are appeal mechanisms, but I am not aware of any examples—at least, none has been drawn to my attention in which there has been a perverse decision.
  Amendment No. 141 seeks to extend the rating exemption for agricultural land, and Amendment No. 142 seeks to extend the exemption for agricultural land to include the rearing of game birds. Amendment No. 143 broadens the provisions. For the reasons stated before, we cannot accept any extension to the agricultural exemption. Amendments Nos. 141 and 143 would potentially open up the rating exemption to activities not solely connected with farming. That would give those property occupiers an unfair competitive advantage over other businesses that could not seek exemption.
  I think that that was the thrust behind what was said by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, although the idea of the farmer taking over the butcher's shop in the local town is in reverse. Getting more control down towards the end of the chain is the way in which producers on the continent have done things for years with co-operatives. I know that what I am going to say is very broad-brush, but basically our farmers have been very reluctant to get involved in genuine co-operatives so that they can control more of the supply chain. That is the only way in which they will ever take on the nasty reaction that some people see as the cause of supermarkets controlling too much of the chain from the other direction and, of course, taking too much of the profit. There is no question about that, whatever Select Committees might say. Supermarkets clean out the profits.
  I am going back to my MAFF days now, and I should not do. I feel strongly about the subject because in some ways the farmers can help themselves in this country, but they have been naturally reluctant to talk to their neighbours and co-operate financially and economically in a way that French, Italian and German farmers do. Those farmers control more of the supply chain, and therefore more of the income and profit. In some ways. the farmers in this country are their own worst enemies. I know that they do not like being told that by a Brummie, but my view has not changed since I left MAFF. The problem is worrying.

  GC 185
  I found out the difference between proper turkeys and mass-produced turkeys when I was in MAFF. I shall not go into that either, but there is a big difference. I have not eaten turkey since, by the way. When I saw how proper turkeys were produced, I would go only for proper turkeys. They are 10 times the price of supermarket turkeys and the scale of production is very small. That is a very seasonal problem, and people come up against regulations and rates for buildings that might be used for something else at another time of year, so I realise that there are difficulties.
  I shall get on to my notes; I have nearly finished. The general thrust is that farmers can take action themselves and that, if they are involved in production for food, they do not have a problem. That may require a slight tweaking to the establishment and to business plans, so that it can be clear that food production is put first. The rearing of game birds can have a part to play for farmers wishing to diversify. We introduced a rate relief scheme on 15th August 2001, designed to help farmers to diversify into nonagricultural activities by partly offsetting their rate bills for an initial period of up to five years. The assistance given to farmers means that they are now able to diversify into a whole range of activities, some of which are in competition with existing business while others are in totally new markets.
  Farmers wishing to diversify into small-scale game farms and hatcheries, for example, may be able to qualify for mandatory relief under the farm diversification scheme. The relief is available to new enterprises on farms and is aimed at small-scale enterprises. As such, it gives properties 50 per cent rate relief provided that the rateable value is £6,000 or less and that the premises were in agricultural use for at least 183 days in the year prior to 15th August 2001. Local authorities have the power to top that up to 100 per cent if they think that it is in theinterests of their council tax payers to do so. The relief is time limited and available until 14th August 2006, although there are provisions to extend that if necessary.
  In the light of what I have said, I hope that the amendment will be withdrawn. I am certainly not saying that there is no problem but on the other hand we are talking about farmers involved with game birds and fish farms for the purpose of producing food. I did not do fishing when I was at MAFF, thank heavens—Elliot did it, bless him. However, no one would argue that fish farms are essentially a sport. They are genuinely food-production activities, as opposed to anything else.
  5.15 p.m.
  Earl Peel: I am no great expert on fish either, but fish farms produce for two purposes: directly to the market and to reservoirs and so on for sport fishing. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I think that he is wrong.
  Lord Rooker: It depends. What is the prime purpose of a fish farm? It is certainly not fish production for
  GC 186
  stock in reservoirs. The economies of scale would not allow that. The prime purpose of fish farms in the main must be food production. I do not know whether catching fish from a fish farm will be classed as sport. But if the prime purpose of a farm is food production, which is what farming is about—this is diversification of food production as it involves game farming for non-game farmers—they can gain full rate relief. Diversification into sporting activities would not be covered by the exemptions. There is no rate relief for other sports activities, and we want as level a playing field as possible.
  Although the amendments are seductive in that respect, I regret that they must be resisted. I would resist them even if I wanted to accept them, as they would greatly confuse the legislation. This is not the appropriate Bill to deal with the matter; other legislation would be required.
  Baroness Hanham: I am enormously glad that I moved the three amendments. We have tempted the Minister away from his notes and into a lecture tour of various legislation. I could not possibly begin to answer all that he said. I shall have to read his response and take advice on its nuances to decide whether the matter needs to be returned to at a later stage. I enjoyed the Minister's response enormously.
  Lord Rooker: I was going to tell all my abattoir
  stories, but I decided against it.
  Baroness Hanham: Well, remind me to move another amendment the next time. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 142 and 143 not moved.]
  Clause 68 agreed to.
  Clauses 69 and 70 agreed to.
  Clause 71 [Local retention of rates]:
  Baroness Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 144:
  Page 34, line 30, after "fit- insert "after consultation with all interested parties"
  The noble Baroness said: I do not want to pre-empt Amendment No. 145A, tabled by the Liberal Democrats, with which I happen to agree. The purpose of the amendments is similar: to ensure that the Government do something that they do not always do; that is, to consult with interested parties, notably local authorities, before prescribing central rules. It is right to expect the Government to do that and to put them under pressure to do so.
  I ask the Minister to reflect positively on the matter and, at the very least, to set out in detail the consultation procedures he intends to follow, so the Committee can form a view of whether it is necessary to write into the Bill a requirement to consult. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: Amendment No. 145A is tabled by the Liberal Democrats. I am tempted to say "abattoirs", as the stories about them would be more interesting than what we have before us. Local

  GC 187
  retention of rates is very important, and we support it. This convoluted scheme leaves one and a half or two tiers, not three. Again, we seem to have the concept of a reward in the clause.
  I tabled the amendment before seeing the ODPM draft note—I am not sure of its technical name—on the clause. Paragraph 13 states:
  "We intend to consult all interested parties on the details of this calculation".
  I am not convinced that that goes as far as the noble Baroness or I seek. It relates to detail rather than something more headline and in the nature of principle. The more reassurances we receive from the Government today, the better.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The two amendments would have a similar effect. Essentially, both noble Baronesses wish to include in the Bill a requirement to consult. Obviously, we favour the principle of consultation—that much we have shared in the Committee. As Members of the Committee will know, we intend to consult on options for a local authority business growth incentives scheme this summer. But we see no need for statutory duties of the type proposed.
  In response to Amendment No. 144, we do not think that it is appropriate to include a statutory duty to consult every time a rule is made or amended, however minor the change. Even if it were considered appropriate, it is not clear what is meant by the term "interested parties" in the case argued.
  On Amendment No. 145A, it is not appropriate to specify a statutory duty to consult every time a minor rule about the relations between billing and precepting authorities is changed. Some of the changes will be very insignificant. If the amendments were honoured, it would mean very detailed consultation over minutiae.
  The existing powers to make regulations under Section 99 of the 1988 Act, to which the amendments refer, do not require consultation. So the amendments would be inconsistent with what has developed as good, effective practice and would be very time-consuming. There is also a defect with Amendment No. 145A in that it would apply only to regulations for England, while Clause 71 covers Wales also.
  We favour the principle of consultation. The issues will be dealt with in greater detail through regulations, but we do not think it right to proceed as the noble Baronesses wish. We will be very careful to consult the usual organisations, and I am sure that if we miss someone, they will tell us. We will take great care to listen to them.
  Baroness Hamwee: Can the noble Lord help us? Paragraph 13 of the draft note states:
  "We intend to consult all interested parties on the details of this calculation".
  That is fine so far as it goes. But it misses out what the noble Baroness and I seek—that is, consultation on the regulations. If the amendment is inconsistent with the 1988 Act, so much the worse for that Act. Let us get it right now.
  GC 188
  The amendments relate to how to set about consultation. I accept the criticism of the deficiency in my amendment; that it does not extend to Wales. But the principle is still important. The issue of sharing between a billing authority and a precepting authority surely requires consultation before one even reaches the details of the calculation.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I can reassure the noble Baroness that we will consult on the underlying principles. As night follows day, it follows that we will consult. It makes good sense and good practice, so it would be foolish to do otherwise. We recognise that there are sensitivities.
  Baroness Hamwee: Night may follow day, but the Government do not always consult, which is why I wish to place the issue on the record.
  Baroness Hanham: The exchange between the noble Baroness and the Minister has probably exhausted the argument running throughout the Bill that, wherever there are regulations, there should be consultation or some means of ensuring that people's views are taken into account to a greater extent than they are here. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 145:
  Page 34, line 40, at end insert—
  "(4E) Notwithstanding the provision of section 143 of the 1988 Act (orders and regulations), no rules may be made under subparagraph (4A) unless a draft of the regulations containing them has been laid before Parliament and approved by resolution of each House.""
  he noble Baroness said: This amendment is very topical. Its purpose is to raise the issue of whether the discretionary rule-making powers taken by the Government should not be subject to affirmative resolution and scrutiny by Parliament. Ministers constantly say that powers are existing, routine or, in the most dubious cases, only reserve. But the problem is that there is now some form on the subject. As I made clear in speaking to the previous amendment, the issue runs throughout the Bill. The Government are trying to exert the powers without the House having the opportunity to consider them closely.
  Clause 71 extends the Government's powers and enables them to intervene with discretionary incentive schemes. It also excludes the City of London from such schemes. That may be for very good reasons, but I do not know what they are. The purpose of the amendment is to raise the question again of why the powers are being taken without draft regulations coming before the House. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: At the risk of repetition, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform has considered the delegated powers contained in the Bill and recommended changes. To the best of my knowledge, we are accepting most of the changes, if not all of them. My advice and that of the ODPM is that, by and large, we should accept the changes. However, this change was not proposed.

  GC 189
  If the amendment were agreed, time would need to be set aside for debates in the House and in another place. That does not mean that the issue cannot be debated. Prayers can always be laid under the other procedures, but the affirmative resolution is not necessary for these detailed, technical regulations.
  I rest my case on the fact that the Select Committee has looked at the issue and decided not to comment on that part of the Bill. I take it that no comment means that the Select Committee is not dissatisfied. As such, this Committee should be content with the Government's original proposal simply on the basis of the Select Committee's detailed scrutiny of the legislation.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. It does not surprise me. It has been a consistent theme throughout the Bill. By tabling the amendment, perhaps we have drawn attention to the number of opportunities in the Bill for the Secretary of State to take decisions by order without having an affirmative resolution attached. It is just another marker on the procedure. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 145A not moved.]
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 146:
  Page 36, line 20, at end insert ", but does not include any regional assembly established pursuant to a referendum conducted under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 (c. 10)."
  The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is to probe what would happen in the unlikely event of a limited response to the soundings about holding a referendum and, ultimately, establishing a regional assembly. Does the Minister envisage a regional assembly being classed as a major precepting authority? It is clear that it will have precepting powers. Does a power exist to define it as such?
  Can the Minister assure the Committee that regional assemblies will not be given financial powers by the back door but will be conferred only in explicit regional legislation? I am sure that I will now be told that it will happen only in explicit regional legislation. None the less, I wish to ensure that it does not happen under this Bill. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: My noble friend Lord Bassam and I have an agreement today to respond to alternate amendments but the order is not the same as this morning. I am now about to reply to Amendment No. 147, when I should be replying to Amendment No. 146.
  Amendment No. 146 seeks to exclude any elected regional assemblies set up following a referendum under the Regional Assemblies (Preparations) Act 2003 from benefiting from regulations enabling local authorities to retain part or all of their non-domestic rates. However, the sub-section to which the
  GC 190
  amendment relates is concerned with Section 38 of the Local Government (Wales) Act 1994. So it would not have what I assume to be the desired effect.
  In any case, the proper time for this House to consider the issue of whether the new regional assemblies should be major precepting authorities is when the Bill that sets up those assemblies comes before the House if there is a "Yes" vote in a referendum. If there is a "No" vote, there will not be a Bill.
  The Earl of Caithness: Perhaps the Minister could be a little more forthcoming than that. He cannot just duck it until the next piece of legislation. Surely the Minister should be able to give a little fuller explanation. We had long discussions about whether regional assemblies would become precepting authorities. If my memory serves me right, we were firmly told that they would not be part of local government. Presumably, therefore, they could not be precepting authorities.
  Lord Rooker: With respect, this Bill is not about elected regional assemblies. If there are to be any, there will be proper legislation in a Bill which will be discussed in full. I guarantee that it will not be before 2005 because the referendums will not take place until the end of 2004. There may be a Bill just after that, but I do not know the date of the referendums. But there will be a proper Bill in due course. I have nothing further to add about the regional assemblies to what I said in the Chamber when I repeated the Deputy Prime Minister's Statement. I would simply be standing here waffling—I am trying not to do that!
  Baroness Hanham: It would be so unlike the Minister to stand and waffle. The Minister said that in a Bill—in the House today we were promised a draft Bill, so presumably within the draft Bill—there would be the information as to whether regional assemblies were to be precepting authorities or not. Judging by what was said, presumably a draft Bill should be available before the first referendum. Otherwise the information will not be available to those taking part in the referendum. For the record, the Minister nods his head.
  Lord Rooker: I shall not add to what I said in the Chamber because I cannot remember what I said and therefore I might get it slightly wrong. Members of the Committee will then use two different answers to the same question against me should I happen to be dealing with the Bill for setting up the regional assemblies.
  Baroness Hanham: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 147:
  Page 36, line 20, at end insert?—
  "() No rule made under this section shall increase the individual liability for non-domestic rates of any ratepayer."
  The noble Earl said: Amendment No. 147 stands in my name and that of my noble friends. This amendment is designed to protect ratepayers from inadvertently facing additional payments as a consequence of government action. Members of the Committee will recall that in the pre-Budget report by the Chancellor in November 2002, he announced that local authorities would be empowered to retain additional rates achieved through successful regeneration. The Chancellor explained that the policy would be a matter for consultation. The noble Lord, Lord Bassam of Brighton, said, "Of course, we consult. As night follows day, we consult". But they have not consulted on this.
  Consequently, what next occurred was an amendment on Report in another place. There has been no consultation, which has rather shattered the trust and confidence between surveyors and the Government. My simple amendment is trying to elucidate more information from the Government as to what the situation is, when they will consult, who will be affected and how it will actually work. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Earl for his explanation. He is probably after a restatement of what is already government policy, which is that no business will pay more non-domestic rates through this scheme. In addition, there is no way under the scheme that they could be increased directly. To answer the specific point about consultation, the Government will produce a consultation paper later in the summer. I know that that can mean any time between now and maybe September or October, but I think that it will be sooner rather than later. However, it will be produced and obviously we shall listen carefully to what it says. I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will feel reasonably reassured by that.
  Our concern, should this amendment be agreed at some point, is that it could have an unintended and perhaps even rather negative effect. It is our view that if rateable values in an authority's area rose faster than the national average because it had improved its business environment as a result of the scheme, after a revaluation those businesses would naturally pay more business rates. The amendment could inadvertently prohibit the scheme encouraging any business growth. We believe that it could have a rather counterproductive effect. For those reasons, and more, I hope that the noble Earl will withdraw his amendment.
  The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful for some of those reassurances. Does the noble Lord not think that it is a little odd to legislate before one consults?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is the case that we consult, we legislate and we consult some more. It is a rolling process, is it not? Sometimes it may not always appear like that, but we are perfecting the scheme. We
  GC 192
  shall consult and I am sure that the organisations with which the noble Earl is obviously very closely in contact will be happy with that consultation.
  The Earl of Caithness: Of course, the Government are always right and consultation is there to justify what the Government put forward. I am glad that the noble Lord confirmed that there is to be consultation. We look forward to receiving it soon. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 71 agreed to. Clause 72 agreed to.
  Clause 73 [Provision of information]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 148:
  Page 37, line 24, leave out "21" and insert "28"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 148, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 which are not directly related but which, to assist the progress of the Committee, we are happy to debate together. Amendment No. 148 addresses the reasonableness of the period of 21 days in which a person must respond to a notice from a local authority. We fully recognise that this is in the context of a penalty notice—a situation where someone has already not replied for a period of 56 days.
  However, there are two other important differences which this Bill enacts from the 1988 Act. First, Clause 73(2)(a) removes the important rider that the information sought must be in the "possession or control" of the person being contacted. That is no longer to be part of the law. The question of possession or control comes into play only once a person appeals—with all the costs involved in that—against a fine of at least £200 and up to £700 for not supplying information that he may never have had in the first place.
  Secondly, the innocent looking subsection (3) removes a "reasonable excuse" defence for noncompliance and once again removes it to the end of the process when the full £700 penalty has already rolled up. In these circumstances, we do not think it reasonable to allow a period of 21 days only for a person to respond to a penalty notice that could unleash penalties of a large scale without any prior right to claim that the information is not in that person's control. The reality is that in the modern world many people take holidays of three weeks or more and may not be back in time to fulfil an obligation of three weeks. It therefore seems only reasonable to allow a person in receipt of a penalty notice to have an extra seven days with which to comply with a request for information. I hope that the Minister can agree to that.
  Amendment No. 150 also addresses the same situation. As the Bill is drafted, a quite innocent person with a reasonable excuse for not supplying information, and who may not even have that information in his possession, may have been hauled over the coals by what is all too often an insensitive bureaucracy. By this time it is possible that a person

  GC 193
  may have been fined up to £700. He would then have had to go to the expense of appealing to a valuation tribunal where he wins his case. After all that, he would be told that the tribunal may only mitigate or repay the penalty that has been unjustly visited upon him.
  This must surely be a case of "shall" not "may", leaving the valuation tribunal no option but to repay the money and not to do so at its discretion. A person who wins his case should be entitled to restitution of an unjust fine. I hope that the Minister will agree to that.
  Amendment No. 151 suggests a further improvement to the system on grounds of fairness. There may be circumstances where it becomes so obvious that a person has been unjustly pursued and has a good excuse not to provide the information that there is no point in the machinery grinding to a conclusion. In those circumstances it ought to be possible for the person to withdraw his appeal against the unjust penalty and for the tribunal to settle the matter out of court and repay the penalty. I suggest that this would be appropriate and sensible and would allow unnecessary time, expense and worry to be avoided. I hope that the Minister can look positively at all these proposals. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: Clause 73 amends the 1988 Act by removing the criminal penalty for the non-return of information requested by the Valuation Office Agency. The VOA sends out requests for information about properties and rents to occupiers prior to a revaluation in order to build up a body of information on which to base its valuations. Occupiers are currently asked to return the information within 21 days or risk criminal prosecution. That is acknowledged as being an inappropriate sanction and was universally ignored. As a result very few forms are returned, simply increasing the cost to the Valuation Office Agency.
  The clause changes that sanction from a criminal to a civil penalty and extends the time allowed. The expectation is that this will improve the level of response and include a more appropriate penalty for non-compliance.
  Amendment No. 148 is aimed at giving ratepayers more time—28 days instead of 21—before the daily penalty starts being incurred. Before the further £100 penalty and daily penalties of £20 are incurred, the person concerned would have had 21 days to reply to the information notice under paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to the 1988 Act and would have failed to do so.
  The person would have had 56 days from first being sent the information request notice under paragraph 5 before being subject to the first £100 penalty. They would also have ignored the penalty notice for a further 21 days. In total, before the extra £100 penalty and daily penalties are incurred, the person will have failed to respond for at least a minimum of 77 days! We feel that this is sufficient time.
  Amendment No. 150 obliges the valuation tribunal to remit any penalty if the appellant is successful in an appeal explaining their reason for not supplying the
  GC 194
  information. I think that we need to leave the discretion with the tribunal. If the circumstances of a case are such that the tribunal feels that the penalty or penalties ought to be waived or reduced, it can do so.
  Tribunals ought to have discretion as to how they act and should not be under a duty to waive or reduce the penalties in all cases. There may be circumstances in a case that mean that the valuation tribunal decides that although there was a reasonable excuse, the penalty should not be waived. I do not know what kind of circumstances those are but I suspect that if I had talked to some of my friends who serve on valuation tribunals they could have given me chapter and verse with regard to the "awkward squad". We must allow the members of valuation tribunals discretion in that regard.
  Amendment No. 151 gives the power to the valuation officer to mitigate or repeal any penalty. This is already covered by new paragraph 5B. There is nothing to stop the valuation officer waiving or remitting the penalty if a settlement has been reached even if the person has started appeal proceedings. The appeal would then be withdrawn and the matter would be over. So the amendment is not needed, it is already covered. I hope that with those reassurances the amendments will be withdrawn.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. However, I wish to return to two points. As I understand it, subparagraph (2)(a) removes the rider that the information sought must be in the possession or control of the person being contacted. So that requirement on the part of the valuation tribunal has been taken out. Therefore, I cannot see what the problem is with accepting Amendment No. 148 under those circumstances. The relevant words have been taken out and no longer constitute part of the law. When I spoke to the amendment, I accepted that the period of 56 days would already have passed. However, I suggested, for a number of very good reasons, that a period of 21 days might not be sufficient and that 28 days would be more appropriate. The problem is whether the person has the information, or can possibly be expected to have it, within their knowledge or possession before the fines procedure begins to apply.
  On the question of valuation tribunals being able to decide whether to waive money after an appeal has been won, that seems to me very strange. I do not know whether I can think of any other situation where, if you won an appeal, you would not get your money back. Even Transport for London can eventually be shamed into reimbursing a parking fine if it was not justified in the first place and you win your case on appeal. There must be a rationale for ensuring that that is the case. I accept the point about Amendment No. 151. If the matter is already covered, I shall not pursue it.
  Lord Rooker: As regards the second point the noble Baroness made, I do not have any examples but in ordinary cases before the courts if people win they are not necessarily awarded their costs, even on appeal.

  GC 195
  There is no general presumption in that regard. In my former constituency a case arose that I raised in an Adjournment debate in the House a long time ago. The person concerned had served a term of imprisonment and, after his release, the appeal was heard and the conviction was quashed. A police officer was involved, believe it or not. One could not turn back the clock. Try to get compensation for that! But it is normally the case that even if you win an appeal, you are not necessarily awarded your costs. That will depend on the circumstances of the case. We have to leave that to the discretion of the tribunal.
  However, if information is statutorily requested by an authority of someone and that person is not in possession of the information, he or she should tell the authority that he does not have the information. However, if the person does not tell the relevant authority that he or she does not have the information, he is obstructing the work of the valuation office. If the person does not have the relevant information, he or she should simply tell the valuation officer that he does not have it. The failure to inform the valuation officer that one does not have the information constitutes an obstruction. The worry about the wording of subparagraph (2)(a) that the noble Baroness mentioned is irrelevant. As I say, if a person does not have the information that is requested of him or her, he should simply say that he does not have it. What he should not do is ignore the request for information.
  Baroness Hanham: I sought a period of 28 days rather than 21 in order to provide the information. However, I hear what the Minister says. I do not wish to pursue the matter further at this stage. However, I am perplexed by what the Minister said about the repayment of a penalty. If one has been fined a penalty, I believe that that should be reimbursed if it is discovered on appeal that it is not justified. I am not talking about costs. Costs could constitute an astronomical sum if counsel have been briefed. I referred to a penalty. The Bill states that,
  "the valuation tribunal may mitigate or remit any penalty".
  We sought to change the word "may" in that sentence to "shall".
  Lord Rooker: If the noble Baroness wishes to provide any examples of where people have been treated unfairly as regards the matter that we are discussing, I shall certainly consider them before Report. I am not saying that I shall take away the amendment and reconsider it but I shall need to be given some facts and details of unfair treatment to respond to the matter if it is raised at the next stage of the Bill. I do not have any examples of that. As I say, I am more than prepared to consider such examples, but the matter must be based on facts, not what we consider might be unfair. The present system seems to work all right. I am not aware of massive problems with the present system. If we are going to change it, we would have to have a damned good reason for doing so.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 149:
  Page 37, line 40, at end insert—
  "(6) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) above—

  (a) where a valuation officer serves a notice under this section, this will comply with guidance to be published by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section; and

  (b) before publishing any such guidance, the Secretary of State shall consult with such persons or organisations as appear to him to be relevant."

  The noble Earl said: This amendment follows on to some extent from the discussion that we have just had. The Minister explained the reasons for Clause 73. By and large, I support the Government in what they are proposing. I am not a great one for increasing bureaucracy but I believe that there is a case here for a little more bureaucracy in the form of guidelines. The Government are giving valuation officers quite a degree of discretion and powers to remit and to levy additional fines. I believe that that ought to be governed by a code of practice or a statement from the Minister. That is what my amendment seeks to achieve. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand why the noble Earl tabled the amendment which follows on from the previous debate. We believe that the scheme works well as it is. Perhaps the noble Earl is aware of problems, difficulties and complaints than we are. The amendment seeks to ensure that new guidance is introduced when the regulations are produced. The clause replaces a criminal penalty with a civil penalty. The scheme should operate largely as it operates at present. I cannot see any major differences.
  There is already a clear legal framework and set of requirements with regard to serving a notice. If that is not done in accordance with proper practice, I am sure that any court would rule on behalf of the person on whom the notice is served. We do not believe that additional guidance on that process is required. No doubt the noble Earl may wish to make some further representations on that point on behalf of his profession, but the scheme works well as it is. As I say, we are replacing a criminal regime with a civil one. We believe that the scheme will continue to work well within that regime.
  The Earl of Caithness: We all hope that the scheme will work well but it did not work under the criminal regime as no action was taken, as the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, said. What the Government are doing—I support that—is introducing a civil regime. However, you are giving valuation officers a degree of power and ability to remit and to levy additional penalties. I believe that guidance should be given on that. In a court situation, one has all the paraphernalia that goes with a court, but valuation officers do not have that. As there are about 1.6 million ratepayers out there, one needs to give some thought to how they might react to the decisions of a valuation officer. I hope that the noble Lord will reconsider the matter with his officials between now and Report as this is a small but important point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 not moved.]
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 152:
  Page 38, leave out lines 36 to 39.
  The noble Baroness said: I fear that there is a whole string of government amendments grouped with my Amendment No. 152.
  This amendment is closely related to the previous debate. It once again brings up the point that occurs time and time again under the Bill that the Government are trying to take far-reaching powers to amend the law. At least in this case it is proposed that there should be an order-making power. But what it says on the face of the Bill is that the Secretary of State can change a penalty without any limit. So, in place of £700, he could potentially introduce £1,000, £7,000 or any figure above or between. Are the Government expecting some sudden surge of inflation that we do not know about?
  I happen to think that the penalties in the Bill—exercised in the ways that I have described—are quite large enough and, indeed, onerous. It is difficult to imagine the need for further alteration. If there should be further alteration, it is difficult to see why that should not be done in the context of primary legislation.
  We all know that a large increase in penalty could be included in a more general unamendable regulation. That would not be acceptable. I have studied Schedule 9 of the 1988 Act which is being replaced under the clause—I hope that the Minister will explain this matter—and find no comparable power. The Government should not have the power I am discussing without it being subject to scrutiny. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: Before I reply to the amendment, I should like to take a little pop at the system in this House. I thought that I had obtained a written agreement, or an agreement between the usual channels, that when government amendments were grouped with Opposition amendments, the letter "G" or the word "Gov" would appear beside the relevant amendment, as occurs in another place. I know that it is a horrible habit to want to drag practices of the other House into the Lords, but I assure the Committee that it is much easier to interpret the Groupings List when the government amendments are identified. That happened the first week after I requested it. but it has not happened since. I turned over the page and thought, "Oh, my God, these are my amendments". I make that suggestion for my own but also other people's convenience. I do not refer to the Marshalled List but to the list that is also available to the public. I believe that if my suggestion were followed, it would be easier to find one's way through the Bill. It was agreed that my suggestion would be adopted. Everyone thought that such a measure would be helpful even though it comprised a nasty practice from another place.
  GC 198
  In due course I shall move the string of amendments in my name. As I say, Clause 73 amends the 1988 Act by replacing the criminal penalty for the non-return of information requested by the Valuation Office Agency with a civil penalty.
  The main amendment, Amendment No. 228, makes any increase or decrease in the level of the penalty subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament in accordance with the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee of your Lordships' House. All the other amendments are purely consequential and I do not propose to speak to them.
  Amendment No. 152, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, removes the power to increase or decrease the amount of the penalty. It is obvious that over time it might be necessary to review the penalty. We believe that making any increase or decrease in the level of the penalty subject to affirmative resolution of both Houses is sufficient safeguard, while enabling the penalty to be reviewed in the light of changing circumstances. I believe that that is right and proper. It should not be for a Select Committee of this House to come up with such a recommendation. Frankly, it should have been in the Bill in the first place that any change to such penalties should be by affirmative resolution. Nevertheless, the committee has an important role to play.
  I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will not press her amendment, that I have answered the specific question she asked and that she is satisfied with the reply.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: My question related to why the Government should be able to increase a penalty without any limit. Is it fair that the Secretary of State can increase the penalty without further reference to Parliament?
  Lord Rooker: Parliament will fix the penalty. It is not a question of the Government being able to have a penalty without any limit. Parliament will fix it by affirmative resolution, so it could be voted down. If Ministers are to review the penalty they will have to come forward with a proposal that will be reasonable for both Houses to support.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I look forward to all the other strings that will come along. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 73 agreed to. Clause 74 agreed to.
  Clause 75 [Exception of students from joint and several liability]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 153:
  Page 39, line 11, at end insert?—
  "( ) After section 6(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14) there is inserted—
  "( ) Subsection (4) shall not have effect in relation to a student who has a freehold or leasehold interest in the dwelling on which a council tax liability has been incurred and is resident in that dwelling.""
  The noble Lord said: We now turn to the provisions in the Bill concerning council tax. Clause 75 allows for the removal of students from joint and several liability with regard to council tax. Perhaps I may say to begin with that we welcome the Government's intention in the Bill to increase flexibility as regards council tax discounts and their objective of supporting students. We are broadly sympathetic towards those principles.
  However, we are concerned that these provisions are loosely drawn. As the Minister is aware, the majority of students—for example approximately 60 per cent of entrants into higher education—are mature students, and the majority of mature students study part time. Many might be employed and earning good salaries. Presumably, the way the clause is drawn relies on dealing with this through the definition of "student". I see from the Explanatory Notes that the definition is set out in paragraph 4 of Schedule I to the Local Government Finance Act 1992.
  However, the schedule states that the Secretary of State may by order set out the definitions. Rather than attempt to continue to pursue this paper trail, I should be grateful to know from the Minister what the order sets out as far as concerns the definition of "student" and whether there is any proposal to change it in the light of these new provisions.
  I also suggest that rather than get bogged down in the definition of "student", which will inevitably lead to loopholes in these provisions, Ministers should simply make provision that this clause does not apply where the student is the owner or part-owner of the property in which they reside. In most cases, students might not be homeowners. They are unlikely to be in a position to pay council tax and are quite rightly exempted from joint and several liability. However, if a person who happens to be a student is sufficiently well off to part-own a property, for example, surely they should not he exempt from liability. We would ask the Minister to consider this again. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am rather puzzled by the amendment. I have always thought that local taxation is best when kept simple. That is what I liked about the rates system and what I did not like about the poll tax. Poll tax brought in a whole raft of people who previously had no experience, knowledge of or interest in paying local taxes. Many thousands were students. As the leader of my council at the time I had the horrible job of trying to enforce payment orders on students who were subject to poll tax. I appreciate that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield—I do not think—has ever been involved in a collecting local authority; Essex is a precepting local authority. So, perhaps he did not have the same experience as me and other noble Lords in the past.
  The problem with the amendment is that it muddies the waters. We are trying to get rid of an anomaly which means that students who are not liable for council tax could find themselves with a council tax bill
  GC 200
  if they live with non-students. The amendment would prevent the complete removal of what I believe to be an anomalous situation, as it would retain joint and several liability for a student who lives in a dwelling with one or more non-students and who has an equal freehold or leasehold interest in the property with one of the other residents. Amendment No. 154 would retain joint and several liability for a student who lives in a dwelling, who had an interest in the freehold or leasehold and was married or lived as a husband or wife with another occupant of the dwelling.
  The way in which the amendments are drafted means that students who are renting a property on a standard six-month tenancy agreement would be caught. The amendments would not apply just to those with long leasehold interests. I can see the noble Lord's argument that such students may well have sufficient resources. However, it makes the situation and the system that we are trying to apply more complex. I have a feeling that the noble Lord's friends in district councils probably would not be too happy about that. During our discussions there have been many complaints about bureaucracy—
  Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for giving way. He referred to the fact that the noble Lord said that students who own their homes or had a leasehold interest might have sufficient means. Surely the whole point is that when one is a student, regardless of where one lives, it is one's revenue income that is the problem. One may well own a property, just as many elderly people do. We argue vehemently that the elderly poor living in their own homes do not have any revenue. Surely that is the point. So how are these people affected? They may have bought a house but they have given up their job to pursue further education. In particular a lone parent, a mother, would have no other income to pay. It is the income that is important, not the assets.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I completely agree. I think that the noble Baroness has rather perfected my point for me. I do not see that the amendments are of great benefit. They would penalise certain classes of students and confuse a situation which is already confused with this anomaly. We think that the amendments are unnecessary. We are trying to tidy up and make the system neater. The amendment would bring into liability a class of students whose revenue interests, frankly, we are trying to protect, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, explained.
  I hope that the noble Lord will see sense on this point and withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: I believe that the Minister has not understood what we are trying to do. No one wants to penalise students who do not have the resources to pay. Perhaps the wording of the amendment is not exactly right and we should consider that again. There is a loophole here. As I said, some 60 per cent of students are adults. I accept that some have given up their jobs and have moved and so forth. However, many people who will not be paying council tax could use this as an excuse to avoid paying it.

  GC 201
  I asked who would define "students". The Minister did not provide an answer to that. The regulations state that at some stage someone will have to define "students". That is what I was trying to probe by tabling the amendment. This could be open to abuse. No one—certainly not us—is trying to do anything other than help the students mentioned by the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock. No one wants to hurt those students. We want to stop any system of abuse, which I am sure those collecting council tax would not want because they need the revenue. I still need a definition. Who will define "student"? That is what someone has to do.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not have a definition of "student" here. We do not have the statutory instrument with us. Clearly there is a definition. However, that is not what the noble Lord said. He did ask about that but he also moved an amendment which would increase the liability of a whole class of students. Worse than that, it would make for complexity and an added level of bureaucracy for billing authorities. Frankly, we do not think that that is a sensible way to proceed. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: Bureaucracy is introduced anyway because someone has to find out who are students and who are not. So, the policy introduces bureaucracy. We are not disputing the fact that we welcome this type of policy but it needs clarity. We shall need to return to the definition of "student" at some stage. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 154 not moved.]
  Clause 75 agreed to.
  Clause 76 [Second and empty homes: England]:
  Lord Morgan Lord Morgan moved Amendment No. 154A:
  Page 39, line 21, after "England" insert "and Wales"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 154A I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 155A, 159A, 165A and, in Schedule 6, Amendments Nos. 228A to 228C. We believe that it is important that the provisions in Clause 76 being made for England should be extended to Wales.
  The thrust of Clause 76 will allow English billing authorities to reduce or remove the 50 per cent discount which applies to dwellings with no residents for classes of dwellings prescribed in regulations made by the Secretary of State. Welsh local authorities already have power under Section 12 of the existing Local Government Finance Act 1992—a Wales-only provision—to reduce to 25 per cent or remove altogether the current 50 per cent discount for classes of unoccupied dwellings as prescribed by the Welsh Assembly.
  Clause 76 gives English authorities some additional flexibility over second and empty homes that is not included in the existing provision for Wales. Extending Clause 76 to Wales would allow the Welsh Assembly
  GC 202
  to prescribe classes of dwellings where a local authority could reduce the discount to amounts other than the 25 per cent or zero permitted under Section 12, and also to decide whether those discounts apply to the whole or part of a billing area to take account of its circumstances.
  The proposals are supported by the Welsh Assembly and the Welsh Local Government Association. I trust, as does the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, that the amendments will be accepted by the Minister. It is important that the powers conferred by Clause 76 on English authorities should be at the disposal of Welsh authorities. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I have listened carefully to the comments made by my noble friend. The new power we propose for the English authorities provides greater flexibility than the current power, which the Welsh authorities have. Therefore, I am happy to agree to take away this set of amendments in the hope that I can return to this on Report, to see whether we can be positively helpful to our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly and give the Wales authorities the greater flexibility we are planning for England. In the light of that, I hope that the amendments will be withdrawn. I am extremely grateful for the issue being raised and shall return to this on Report.
  Lord Morgan: I am grateful to the Minister. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 155:
  Page 39, line 24, leave out "the Secretary of State sees fit" and insert "regulations under this section may provide"
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of Amendment No. 155 is to seek clarification from Ministers on the working of this clause. Clause 76 enables the Secretary of State to prescribe classes of dwelling to apply for council tax discounts in accordance with,
  "such factors as the Secretary of State sees fit".
  Reference is then made to two particular factors. However, it is clear from the wording of the Bill that these are simply illustrative. The Bill does not limit the Secretary of State's scope to those two factors.
  If the examples cited in the Bill are, indeed, simply illustrative, one wonders what their purpose is other than to signal the intention of Ministers. Elsewhere, as we have gone through the Bill Ministers have been content to signal their intention orally rather than through illustrative provisions, so it is not clear to me why in this case there needs to be a different approach.
  Putting that to one side, however, the substantive issue is that we should like reassurance that the factors that the Secretary of State thinks fit are comprehensively depicted by the regulations under subsection (1), and that no other factors can be introduced by the Secretary of State without parliamentary scrutiny. The Minister will appreciate that, as later amendments demonstrate, there is a great deal of detail about how the provisions are framed. It is important that they benefit from further parliamentary scrutiny. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Last November, we announced our intention to give billing authorities the freedom to reduce the current 50 per cent council tax discount on second homes and to reduce or remove the current 50 per cent discount for long-term empty properties. We have made our draft regulations available to your Lordships' House, and we plan to consult on them later in the year.
  The draft regulations set out classes of second homes and long-term empty property. Where necessary, appropriate definitions are included, as in relation, for example, to "job-related dwelling" and "unoccupied". We do not see how setting out factors in the regulations will help particularly. Our policy is clear enough, and we shall consult on the regulations to give effect to the policy once we have the necessary primary powers. We think it nonsense to say that requiring the expansion of the regulations in the way that the noble Lord suggests will add anything.
  I appreciate that that does not satisfy the point that the noble Lord raises, but the consultation will be there. We think that the system will work well enough and be able to provide sufficient clarity, given how the regulations are drafted and the explanations that go with them.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that answer. It is illustrative of the fact that a lot of the Bill—what regulations decide and what the Secretary of State should decide—should be looked at in terms of parliamentary scrutiny. Obviously, we have only just begun to scrutinise the regulations thoroughly, as we only received them recently. I accept what the Minister says at the moment, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 155A not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 156:
  Page 39, line 31, leave out from first "area" to end.
  The noble Lord said: The Bill currently allows local authorities to reduce the discount for council tax on second and empty homes further in some parts of an area than in others, so long as the discount remains at least 10 per cent of the full tax. That seems unnecessarily divisive and complicated.
  We are, of course, in favour of local flexibility and of providing local authorities with the power to respond to the local needs of their communities. We believe that providing a power to disapply discounts provides that flexibility. However, in principle we would be cautious about going down the route of differential levels of council tax for the same class of dwellings in an authority. We think that people in a local authority area will find such differential charging hard to understand.
  For any tax regime it is important that there be confidence in its fairness. Transparency is something that generates that confidence. The provisions are in danger of damaging that transparency and that confidence. At a time when council tax is coming
  GC 204
  under intense scrutiny, we believe that the Government should be wary of introducing measures likely to lead to confusion and a lack of understanding. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I fully understand the points that the noble Lord makes, but I hope that I shall he able to satisfy him that there are good reasons why the Bill is drafted as it is. The clause has been drafted so as to allow a billing authority to have different levels of discount in different parts of its area. The amendment would remove that flexibility and require an "all or nothing" approach. We included the flexibility for a good reason. Local authority areas are not homogenous. For example, there may be a particular issue with second homes or long-term empty property in only one part of the district. That is why we believe that the billing authority should be able to choose how it uses the new power.
  Last November, the local government Minister, Nick Raynsford, announced that we intend to allow local authorities to retain the additional revenue generated by the reduction in the current 50 per cent discount on second homes. We decided that it was important that the second-home owners had an incentive to tell their local authority that the home was a second home, so that local authorities would know how much extra income was being generated. That is why we propose that the local authority should offer a minimum 10 per cent discount. Taken together, Amendments Nos. 157, 158 and 159 would mean that we would lose the ability to insist on that minimum. In turn that would make it difficult for the local authority to identify the extra revenue, which would undermine the policy of allowing the local retention of the extra income.
  I fully accept the noble Lord's points, but the measure is a way for us to identify the extra income that local authorities could generate, which they would be able to keep themselves. I hope that he will find that explanation satisfactory.
  Baroness Hanham: I want to pursue that particular matter. It is good to know that local authorities can retain the additional income, but will it be truly additional? Will it be swept up in the revenue support grant discussions, or is it on top of all that? Is it a separate sum of money that can be used for some community purpose?
  Lord Rooker: I plead guilty to not knowing. It would be unfair were the income to be swept up in the rate support grant, but I do not know about the future formulas for that. It is intended that the change shall be advantageous to local authorities. I do not think that it would be swept up—I hope that it would not be—so the answer has to be no.
  Oh! Here is where we find out. The income is genuinely additional to the revenue support grant. I knew that the Government would not want to cheat local authorities. I knew that we genuinely wanted to work in partnership, and that it was intended that extra revenue be generated. To be able to identify that, we need the incentive for the second-home owner to

  GC 205
  come forward and say, "It's a second home; I claim my 10 per cent". Therefore, it can be worked out from where the extra income is generated.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that answer. We welcome the extra flexibility that local authorities have. I shall not repeat my point about some confusion being caused, and we welcome the assurance that local authorities will be able to keep the money rather than having it taken away from them in their rate or revenue support grant settlement. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 157 to 159 not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 160:
  Page 39, line 40, at end insert—
  "( ) No dwelling may be prescribed by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above on the ground that it is unoccupied if the owner or occupier is a sick or disabled person who is resident in a hospital, hospice, residential care home or nursing home.
  ( ) No discount may be removed from a mentally or physically disabled person under this section on the ground that a dwelling is unoccupied if it is unoccupied by reason of long-term illness or infirmity."
  The noble Lord said: The amendment is part of a series comprising Amendments Nos. 160,161 and 162. As I said earlier, we have looked at the draft regulations and some matters are covered. However, I should still like to explore some of them with the Minister. Clause 76 accords the Secretary of State wide-ranging powers to classify types of dwelling according to physical characteristics or the fact that a dwelling may be unoccupied. Have the details of how that might work in practice been left to regulations? We are concerned about a number of provisions, and I should be grateful for clarification.
  For example, we are concerned that the clause will leave certain groups of people vulnerable to increased tax that they cannot afford, for services that they do not use. In several places, the Bill and the draft regulations are not clear on whether particular classes of individuals will be caught. We are concerned about elderly people who have taken up occupancy in a care home, for example, and individuals in residential care with a long-term illness. Having read the draft regulations, we do not feel assured that those individuals will not fall within the scope of provisions designed to capture unoccupied dwellings. Will the Government give us some assurance that those individuals will not become victims of increased taxation?
  Baroness MaddockI have sympathy—
  Lord Hanningfield: I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: I apologise. It must be the quality of the air in this room. It can get a bit soporific after a while, and one is desperately trying to keep awake to do whatever one is going to do.
  GC 206
  I have a certain amount of sympathy with the amendment. I had assumed that the Government would deal with the classes under regulations. It is important that we are flexible on the matter, because one wants the ability to adjust what one is charging for according to what is happening in the housing market in particular. Years ago, we would not have thought that we would have so many elderly people going into rest homes and so forth. It is right that the matter is handled under regulations.
  Like the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I should like the Minister to give us some reassurance that the classes of people will be included in regulations. As we are, in effect, discussing empty homes, I declare an interest as patron of the Empty Homes Agency, which I am quite sure will not let the Government get away with awful regulations that do not include the people whom we are not in the business of penalising.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I agree with the noble Baroness; it is quite easy to be sympathetic to the amendment. However, it ignores the fact that we need a rational scheme that works nationally. I hope that the noble Lord will accept that we are not trying to disadvantage people advantaged by how the scheme works as it is.
  The amendment appears to attempt to prevent the nationally set second-homes and long-term-empty discounts from being changed in relation to property owned or, in the case of second homes, that would be occupied by sick or disabled people but is unoccupied, either because the relevant person is sick or disabled and in residential care or hospital, or because the relevant person is mentally or physically disabled and has a long-term illness or infirmity.
  As the law stands, no council tax discount is available on a person's property because an owner or occupier is in hospital for a short period. If the person goes into long-term care and has no intention of returning to their old home, there is a council tax exemption if that property was their sole or main residence and is now unoccupied. However, that does not apply to second homes or to vacant property which was not the person's sole or main residence, although they would be entitled to the nationally set discounts.
  As I said, we sympathise with those who cannot live in their own homes because of illness or disablement but, if someone is in hospital for only a short period, plainly it would be an administrative nightmare for the billing authority to keep track of when there was a council tax liability and when there was not. I remember when my mother had some residential care and then came back to her council bungalow. One can see such situations replicating themselves all over the place. Trying to keep account of them, particularly when the short term is involved, is quite difficult.
  The amendment has cast its net very wide. Sympathetic though we are to it, it would create a layer of complexity and we cannot go with it, despite

  GC 207
  understanding the point that the noble Lord is getting at. The amendment requires more thought from him, and we are not minded to accept it.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. Care for the elderly changes rapidly the whole time. As time moves on, there is much more reason to get people back in their own homes. People can be out of their home for quite a while, but an effort is made by the hospital services, health services and social services to get people back eventually in their own homes with all sorts of assistance. That will happen more and more. People will not be so much in residential care, so quite a lot of homes will be empty for quite a while, waiting for people to come back to them.
  All sorts of other matters are relevant. I am going through the process with my elderly father at present. When people are in hospital or some sort of residential care, the stopping and starting of all sorts of things has to be organised. I am sure that my suggestion would not be too much extra to organise, from the points of view of both the local authority and the family during that time.
  The Minister said that he had sympathy for the amendment. As we move on and more and more people are in this situation, regulations will have to change to accommodate them. The Minister may have some sympathy for the amendment, but I—and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock—believe that we cannot simply ignore the issue these days. We must pursue the issue and ensure that regulations cope with that group of people.
  6.30 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock: Is it the Government's intention to stipulate in regulation some period of time whereby property can remain empty when people are in longterm care or are ill? That is what we are talking about. Will the Government consider that in regulations? If not, we may need to return to it later on.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is not a commitment that I want to give. In tabling the amendment, the noble Lord may have missed the essential point. The clause is primarily about second homes and long-term empty homes, not people's sole or main residence. We are talking about empty properties and, in those situations, there will be shared family responsibility. One would expect that efforts would be made to ensure that those long-term empty properties were brought back into use, and that is part of the purpose behind the clause.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister. We shall have to consider what has been said on this subject. There is a group of people involved in this matter, as the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, and I have outlined. We may have to return to the matter, but for the moment I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 161 not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 162:
  GC 208
  Page 39, line 40, at end insert—
  "( ) No dwelling may be prescribed by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) above and no discount may be removed or reduced under this section on the ground that a dwelling is unoccupied if the owner is actively marketing the property with the purpose of letting, lease or sale."
  The noble Lord said: I did not move Amendment No. 161, because, having read the regulations, we decided that the issue had been covered. Therefore, I am now moving Amendment No. 162.
  We are concerned that an exception should be made for properties when the owner is attempting to sell or lease. Some people move out of one property before finalising a sale, and would become liable for double taxation under the new legislation. We recognise that a system whereby property for sale was exempt from the clause could be abused. We therefore suggest, in accordance with a proposal put forward by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, that a property that has been actively marketed should continue to qualify for a council tax discount. We would support the Government in issuing local authorities with guidance and an appropriate definition of such properties.
  The measures in the Bill may also have a negative impact on the housing market in some areas. Vacant property in certain areas actually reflects the collapsed property market, and a decrease in council tax discount in those areas could exacerbate the problem. I would be grateful for the Minister's views. I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: I support my noble friend's amendment. I am particularly concerned about property that is for sale. The Minister was right to draw attention to the fact that the clause relates to second homes. My noble friend's amendment would address that issue.
  We must not forget that housing markets change rapidly. I shall put on my residential agent's hat. I have lived through at least three downmarkets when it has been very difficult to move property. Sometimes, people have to move jobs, and may have to move out of an area and find accommodation before their first property is sold. That becomes their second home. It seems wrong that the legislation should penalise those people if they are actively marketing that property.
  The Minister said that he wanted a scheme that worked nationally, but the housing market does not work nationally—it works very locally. I can take the Minister to areas in London where the market did not move for months if not years at times. There are places in Britain now where property is on the market for months and months. We must not get brainwashed by the market in London, which has been remarkably strong for a long time and is still good at the moment. That is a false market, when one is considering the national picture. I support my noble friend strongly on this.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment would prevent the reduction or removal of the 50 per cent discount if the owner was actively marketing the property. Our main objection is that it would create a

  GC 209
  bureaucratic practical nightmare for local authorities in keeping track of where properties were entitled to a 50 per cent discount and where the local determined figure applied. For what purpose would it do that? Would it act as an incentive to owners of second homes and long-term empty property to sell or lease them? I do not know that it would. I question the workability of the proposal. At what point does a property become marketed? That is a question that might be asked.
  We are endeavouring to get empty houses back into use, but council tax is not payable on a substantially unfurnished property for the first six months when it is unoccupied. If it is undergoing major repair or structural alteration, the exemption period is a year. Surely those exemption periods will give owners more than enough time to market their property, if that is their intention. But when it comes to second homes, I really do not see why the discount has to be kept at 50 per cent if the property is on the market. If the outcome were to be that the second home ceased to become a second home, that might help the local housing pressures in popular areas. However, the chances are that in such areas the property would be sold to another second-home owner. Why should we deny local authorities that income, as well as increasing their administration burdens and costs?
  The point made by the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, about the property market is an argument in itself, but I do not believe it to be relevant to what we are trying to achieve through an instrument of national policy. I agree that we do not want to incentivise authorities to remove the empty homes discount in areas where there is little demand—I take that point. That is why authorities will not keep the benefit of the empty homes discount; there is no false incentive on them to end the discount in low demand areas.
  I appreciate that the housing market goes through highs and lows, and I see that there may be a problem at certain times. However, by and large the scheme should work well nationally. There are differences in the housing market in different localities, but the anomalies and difficulties that the amendment might create for the billing authority outweigh the possible minor benefits that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, sees in the amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister. On several of the amendments that we tabled in an attempt to improve the situation, he has commented that they would make difficulties for the billing authority. After we have finished debating these amendments, we must consider how we might make things simpler in the next stage of the Bill. We feel that our amendments might make the system fairer, and we may need to find ways in which it might be easier for the billing authority to implement our proposals, by using modern technology. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 163:
  Page 40, line 3, at end insert—
  GC 210
  "( ) A billing authority shall not make a determination under this section unless it has taken reasonable steps to ensure that households affected have been made aware of its intention."
  The noble Lord said: Clause 76(6) requires an authority that has decided to disapply council tax discounts to publish a notice to that effect in a local newspaper. The next subsection says that, if it does not do that, it does not matter. The original determination will remain valid. I am unclear whether a local authority is under a duty to do it or not. I can only conclude that a local authority is under such a duty, but that it does not matter if the local authority does not comply. Is that right? It certainly seems very odd.
  We also have concerns about the effectiveness of putting in a local paper a notice to the effect that discounts on occupied property are being disapplied. In many instances, that will prove a merely cosmetic measure that will not alert those affected to the decision. However, our major concern and the point of the amendment is that people should have the opportunity to make representations to the council before it takes a decision of this nature, which will have a direct impact on the level of local taxation.
  In conclusion, we support local authorities having the power, and believe that good communication encourages public engagement in local democracy and ensures the accountability of local authorities to local communities. As long as the public is notified in advance of any intention to alter the council tax discounts, it is not necessary for the Government to be unduly prescriptive about the ways in which local authorities communicate with the electorate. The amendment would leave it to local authorities to determine how best to do that. We do not see that as an onerous addition to the duties already imposed in the Bill. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: I would be grateful if the Minister would give us some idea of the thinking behind subsection (7), which says that the determination is valid even when the local authority does not advertise it. There must be some reason for that, and I hope that the Minister can tell us what it is.
  Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 163 would require a billing authority to take reasonable steps to inform all households affected by any proposal to reduce or remove council tax discounts. We recognise the importance of the decision to reduce or remove discounts on second homes or long-term empty property, which is why we have provided for this decision to be taken by a full council meeting. That is achieved by an amendment to Section 67 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992, in paragraph 49 of Schedule 6 to this Bill. We also provide for the billing authority to publish a notice in at least one newspaper circulating in the area. That is achieved by new Section 11 A(6) inserted by Clause 76.
  What we are discussing is the minimum requirement. I would expect there to be a full local debate about the issues around changing the second homes or long-term empty property council tax discounts. If the second-home owners say that they did not know about the measure, they do not have much

  GC 211
  interest in the area in which they have their second home, do they? Think about it. People who are using those second homes will at least participate in the local community to the extent, if not of shopping there, of buying the local newspaper.
  The provision is consistent with other parts of the Local Government Finance Act, including the current Welsh provisions. We do not want mass non-payment when there are minor technical breaches by an authority. Of course, the intention is that the advert should appear. The objective of the amendment is to spell out in the Bill that the billing authority has to search out every household affected. That is not a reasonable position in which to put local government. If an authority takes reasonable steps, the decision will have to be made at a full council meeting, not only by a sub-committee. With a minimum requirement of a newspaper advert, local debate would be generated. One sees headlines in local papers in areas where there are second homes. The second-home owner has a responsibility. I do not see why that responsibility should all be put on the local authority—that is, on the general council tax payer.
  I hope that that is a reasonable explanation. The amendment is onerous in the extreme, and we are trying not to apply such measures to local authorities. We would not want minor technical breaches to cause difficulties. As I say, the issue would have to be taken up by the full council. I am not sure what other issues require in statute that the full council has to take decisions. That is there for really important decisions, and this is such an important decision and something of which second-home owners should be broadly aware.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: The Minister needs a greater realisation of what goes on in council meetings and how much is actually reported. If the Minister is suggesting that every bit of every council meeting is reported faithfully by the local press, he is in cloud-cuckoo land. Half the time, the press does not turn up; nor do members of the public. The fact that something is decided in council will not necessarily ensure that it goes any further than the council chamber.
  The decision would be taken in the course of debate on the new council tax regime for the following year, as something that would happen thereafter. As far as I am aware, every council issues a rates statement or council tax statement. The leader sends a letter to the ratepayers or council tax payers. There is a perfectly good mechanism by which the information can be disseminated without the council paying a penny more than it pays normally to make sure that it is available.
  It cannot be an onerous responsibility but it is important to ensure that people are aware whether they will have to pay more. It is not up to the second home owner to ferret around trying to find out whether the situation has changed. Local papers are not brilliant. Often, there are no free papers—certainly in country areas. We can debate how people become aware of the information, but there is a responsibility
  GC 212
  on the local authority, if it is changing its terms of taxation, to make sure that the people affected by it know about it.
  Lord Hanningfield: The Minister did not explain an odd thing in the Bill. New Section 1 IA(6) says:
  "A billing authority which makes a determination under this section shall publish a notice in at least one newspaper".
  New Section 11A(7) says:
  "Failure to comply with subsection (6) above shall not affect the validity of the determination".
  It is nonsense to have "shall" in subsection (6), if it is negated in subsection (7). Those are odd provisions, and the Minister did not answer that question. One moment, he said that the authority "shall" do it, and, the next moment, he said that it did not matter and would not affect the decision if it did not. No one will waste the money if it does not matter.
  Lord Rooker: I did refer to it. Perhaps I did not go into sufficient detail. I made the point that we did not want mass non-payment, if there was some minor technical breach. The intention is that they shall comply.
  I go back to what I said originally. I do not believe that second home owners are so stupid that they do not know what is on offer or what changes are being made. They have applied for the discount in the first place, and they have sufficient knowledge of the area in which they have the second home to decide that, if they are not using the services, they will not pay the full council tax. Not every second home owner takes that view. Many second home owners I know say, "No. I will pay the full council tax because there is a responsibility to do so where I have the home, even though I am not using all the services". There are people who take that view. It is incumbent on the others to take a bit of responsibility on themselves and not have everything done for them by the local authority.
  I know that the reporting of local authorities varies. Heavens above, Parliament does not get reported these days, but I will not open up a new debate on that. Judging by the headlines that I see in papers in non-urban areas, there are many areas where the local press and the free press print the stuff that they get from local authorities virtually verbatim. I do not accept that people would be unaware.
  The intention is that local authorities shall take reasonable steps to publicise the change. I suspect that the vast majority of local authorities will do that. There may be a minor technical breach for some reason—for example, the paper may not appear, or the free paper may not be delivered down a particular street that it used to get delivered in—but we cannot allow a situation in which the circulation of a free paper is changed because someone says that it was not delivered down their street and claims that he relies on it for all his information. That would be a minor technical breach, and we would not want people not to pay because of it. We must be reasonable about it.
  Baroness Hamwee: Is it not the case, as a matter of' practice, that an authority would not take that

  GC 213
  decision other than to have effect at the start of a Financial year? There would be a problem with billing otherwise. It would be costly to bill halfway through the year. Given that, the most straightforward thing would be for it to go into the council tax demand, as part of the statement. My noble friend Lady Maddock and I have been muttering about that, and we assume that it would happen as a matter of routine. Even if the information were not absolutely clear, the authority would have to show the calculations.
  I am unconvinced about the need to bother spending money on putting the information into local papers. It would be more proper to make sure that the information is clear in the council tax demand.
  Lord Hanningfield: I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, just said. In local authorities, we have a duty to send the council tax explanation out. The information could go in that. That might be better than what is suggested in the rather confused line in the Bill. It would be better if it went out with the annual demand.
  Lord Rooker: Council tax bills vary depending on location, but a good deal of bumf comes with them. We hope that everyone would read the information. My officials tell me that the details would have to be on the bill. It would be done at the beginning of the year, not halfway through it. There is a presumption that the local authority would comply with subsection (6) in the same way as any other legal obligation. If the information is on the face of the council tax bill, that must satisfy the requirement. It is not an unreasonable expectation that people would read their bills and the accompanying explanatory material so that they can find out how the bill is made and the goodness that comes from putting money into the community kitty.
  Lord Hanningfield: On the bill, there are various precepts according to where one lives. There may be a parish precept if one lives in a village. Alternatively, there may be a district precept, a police precept or a fire precept. The bill could give information on what this provision does. That would be the best approach. I think that we all see sense on this issue, so perhaps we could agree. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment today. I am sure that we can all see sense on the matter in future.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 164:
  Page 40, line 9, at end insert—
  "( ) If a billing authority makes a determination under this section, it shall be disregarded for the purposes of distributing revenue support grant to receiving authorities under section 78 of the Local Government Finance Act 1988 (c. 41) (revenue support grant)."
  The noble Lord said: We have discussed the matter already today, but my remarks should go on the record. The amendments would ensure that any increase in income that a local authority gained from taking up the powers was retained by that local authority to enable it to invest in meeting local needs.
  GC 214
  It is the only way to ensure that any increased powers of taxation at local level are met with accountability to the local electorate.
  We also seek assurance that any increase in income to a local authority generated by disapplying council tax discounts would not be taken into account by the Government in the distribution to local authorities of the revenue grant or any other grant from central government. In other words, we seek assurance that an increase in council tax income on the basis of discretionary decisions taken by local authorities will not result in a decrease in government grants. Can the Minister assure us that local authorities and local services delivery would benefit from those freedoms?
  While I am on the subject, it would also be helpful to have an assurance from the Minister that he will resist any attempts that the Treasury might make to take the opportunity to claw back the extra money in the system created by the provisions from the total funding of local authorities.
  It is very important that the provisions are not seen as another attempt by the Government to load further pressure on the council tax. A clear assurance from the Minister on those points would be very helpful. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: My noble friend Lady Hamwee has attached her name to the amendments. We have long supported the Government in their attempt to change the council tax on second homes, particularly empty homes, on which I declared an interest earlier. I also declare an interest as a second home owner, which is somewhat alien to me, as I have not had a second home for long. I am not claiming discounts on it, as I thought that that would be too much for a housing spokesman to ask.
  The Minister will not be surprised that I raise the issue that the Government believe that, if councils are allowed to retain the extra money they will get from taxing empty homes under the Bill, somehow they will use it in the wrong way. He wrote to me on the issue. and we have heard about it in other arenas. On the other hand, the Government have said publicly at conferences dealing with empty homes that they think councils should have empty property strategies and empty property officers. But if councils cannot use the extra money that they are getting from taxing empty homes, where is the money coming to fund such strategies and officers? It acts as a disincentive for councils to make such provision.
  Through my work with the Empty Homes Agency, I know the valuable work that empty property officers do. One of the best examples that I remember was the empty property officer in south Somerset to whom I presented an award. The council had the sense to employ an estate agent—I hope that the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, will not take offence—who knew his way around the property world and was extremely successful in getting empty properties brought hack into use. Of course, that was a small council. It costs money.

  GC 215
  The Government are being perverse. They support publicly that type of work, yet they will not allow local authorities to have the money. I will continue to press the issue until the end of the passage of the Bill.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendments have value, in that they seek to ensure that local authorities are not penalised for the way in which they collect the extra revenue. We announced last November that we intended to allow local authorities to retain the additional revenue generated by the reduction in the current 50 per cent discount on second homes. We also said that we would ensure that revenue support grant would not be reduced if local authorities decided to reduce the discount for second homes. That answers the point that worried the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. Going further with the revenue support grant, we will continue to calculate the tax base as if there were no determination in respect of second homes, prescribed as a class under new Section 11A(3), which is inserted by Clause 76. In other words, we propose to calculate revenue support grant on the basis that the 50 per cent discount continues for second homes. There is no need to amend primary legislation to bring that about.
  In the case of long-term empty property, we intend to give authorities the power to reduce or remove the current 50 per cent discount, but do not wish them to be able to retain the additional revenue. That is because we want to ensure that local authorities decide to reduce or end the discount on long-term empty properties on housing and planning grounds and not for financial reasons. It is right to seek to protect owners of long-term empty properties who are on low incomes or in areas where the property market is such that it is difficult to sell their property from facing an increased tax burden on grounds other than housing need.
  I hope that satisfies the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, takes some comfort from what I say, as well.
  Baroness Maddock: I cannot say that I do, really. It is perverse to think that local authorities will use the provision in the way described by the Minister, given the housing and homeless strategies that we will discuss later. Many of the empty properties that are brought back into use are used by local authorities to house people with housing needs. There have been plenty of such schemes. I do not understand the Government's thinking, and I do not believe that it is logical.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister, who may have half-satisfied us. We shall return to some of the housing issues later on. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 165 and 165A not moved.]
  Clause 76 agreed to.
  7 p.m.
  Clause 77 [Billing authority's power to reduce amount of tax payable]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 166:
  Page 40, line 20, leave out "in relation to particular cases or"
  The noble Lord said: I have to say that, although I am a supporter of maximising the discretion and freedom of local authorities, I was extremely surprised to see a provision in the Bill to enable local authorities to reduce the amount of tax payable by particular individuals.
  That seems, in principle, fundamentally inequitable. I am surprised that a Labour government support the concept of treating individuals differently from one another for tax purposes. Whatever the intention of the provision, does the Minister not recognise that, in practice, the articulate rather than the needy are likely to benefit? Those with the time and ability to argue their case coherently are likely to reap the rewards of the provision.
  From a local authority perspective, there is the potential for the system to be truly a nightmare. We have heard a lot today about what might be difficult for local authorities. There is no doubt that if those powers were put on the statute book, local authorities would receive many requests from individuals to have their council tax reduced. It would create an enormous burden on local authorities just to process the paperwork—much more than some of the other areas discussed today. Furthermore, when reductions have been made for some individuals, there will inevitably be questions about why exceptions were made in those cases. The potential expense for local authorities in dealing with that could be considerable. I urge the Minister to think again about whether this is the best way to achieve these ends.
  I would be grateful for guidance on the practical dimension to the arrangement. As the Minister will know, in two-tier areas the billing authority is the district council. The power rests with it despite the fact that, on average, roughly 90 per cent of the council tax bill that it will reduce pays for county council expenditure. That is why we have two tiers and we do not have regional government all over the country. I presume that, under these provisions, for a district council to make reductions in a council tax bill there will be a recalculation of the council tax base and a corresponding adjustment upwards to revenue support grant. I assume that that is the case.
  My worry is that it will be difficult and expensive administratively where we are talking about individual discounts. Operating many individual discounts could, unless there was a compensatory recalculation of the tax base, have a significant impact on a county council that had no responsibility for, or influence

  GC 217
  over, those decisions. For the reasons that I have set out, I urge the Minister to think carefully about whether the power is really necessary. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: I wish to pick up a point in the Explanatory Notes and ask whether the Minister would be kind enough to explain it. Paragraph 149 states:
  "Authorities may exercise this power in individual cases"—
  that is reasonably clear from the Bill—
  "e.g. individual hardship, in cases where the taxpayer is not eligible for council tax benefit, for example, where the dwelling is not their sole or main residence)".
  We have ifs and buts on different categories already. If that will be the situation regarding individual cases, why limit it to those? The whole clause begs more questions than it answers and probably creates more complications than the Government might expect or wish it to make.
  Lord Rooker: We should never give examples; you cannot cover all the cases. The noble Baroness makes a fair point.
  Clause 77 inserts a new section 13A into the Local Government Finance Act 1992 giving billing authorities discretion to reduce the amount of tax payable. I do not want to start a row but it was interesting to listen to local government bosses saying that they did not want the flexibility to reduce council tax.
  In our 2001 local government White Paper we made clear that we are aiming to devolve more decisions on council tax discounts and exemptions. Allowing more decisions to be made locally will give local government greater flexibility to design policies appropriate to their area and give them the ability to respond to difficult cases which are not covered by the present nationally set council tax discounts and exemptions.
  This clause does just that by giving billing authorities power to reduce the council tax for a class of dwellings, for example those affected by flooding in a particular location, or for individual circumstances, for example where there is hardship. The billing authority would, of course, have to act reasonably and would have to justify to its auditors what it had done.
  To accept the noble Lord's amendment would remove the possibility of billing authorities granting discounts in individual cases. It suggests that Members of the Committee opposite—I refer only to council tax "bosses" opposite—do not trust local authorities to have that kind of freedom. But we on this side believe that local authorities should have that flexibility.
  In the old days when we had rates and rateable values—this did not apply to the poll tax—it was always difficult to get reductions. But I did my bit before I entered another place to encourage people to seek rate rebates and discounts when they lived, for example, near factories and quarries. I dealt with the bureaucracy on their behalf. People obtained those discounts through revaluation. There is enormous scope for the pavement politicians of this country to
  GC 218
  exploit the flexibility that I mentioned. Councils may not like that but giving that extra flexibility locally can sometimes assuage people's frustration when they feel as if the council does not care and they cannot get a reduction when it is justified.
  I do not say that the flexibility is a panacea, far from it, as the amount of money available is notional. However, people can experience incredible frustration when they believe that their local circumstances are not taken account of. The flexibility to which I referred may let the steam out of the bottle in those cases. As I say, we think that local authorities should have that flexibility but they must use it reasonably. Under the clause, billing authorities will meet the cost of providing discounts. There is no recalculation of revenue support grant. This is a genuine local decision for which billing authorities must pay to meet local demand.
  Lord Hanningfield: Most of England is covered by two-tier authorities. A billing authority gets about 10 per cent of the tax whereas 90 per cent goes to the county council for such things as education, social services and such matters as flooding measures. Is the Minister saying that the whole cost of what we are discussing would be funded by the billing authority?
  Lord Rooker: I am sorry, I did not read the final sentence. There would be no impact on the preceptors.
  Lord Hanningfield: Obviously we are talking about a limited power. I accept what the Minister has said today. We may consider the matter further in terms of how local authorities will work within the new regime. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 77 agreed to.
  Clause 78 [Statutory revaluation cycle]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 167:
  Page 40, leave out lines 27 to 29.
  The noble Lord said: We have tabled a number of amendments whose purpose is to probe the Government's thinking over the introduction of a statutory revaluation cycle.
  The first of the amendments in the group is clearly probing. We should be grateful, first, for an explanation as to why revaluation is necessary at all. Assuming that, since the Government are introducing this provision, they have strong arguments at their disposal for justifying it in principle. We should be grateful for clarification as to why the Minister has hit on 10 years for the revaluation cycle rather than five years, as I believe is currently the case with non-domestic rates and is the period recommended by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors for council tax revaluation. After all, would not a five-year cycle reflect fluctuations in the property market more accurately and ensure a fairer distribution of council tax charges across local authority areas and between local authority areas nationally? Why does not the Minister propose a five-year cycle? Will he answer that question after he has said why the measure is necessary at all?

  GC 219
  If the issue is one of resources, I should be interested to know whether the Minister's department has made any evaluation as to how much a revaluation will cost.
  I also oppose the Question that Clause 78 stand part of the Bill. We are unconvinced of the need for a statutory revaluation cycle and therefore propose that this provision be removed from the Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: Amendment No. 167 would remove the requirement for the listing officer to compile and then maintain a new list for council tax purposes. This would leave no one responsible for the compilation of new lists.
  The Government set out their policy with regard to council tax revaluation in the 2001 White Paper entitled, Strong Local Leadership—Quality Public Services. In that we said that there should be a 10-yearly cycle of council tax revaluations with the first one taking effect in 2007. The existing powers in the Local Government Finance Act 1992 made some provision for changing the valuation bands and the ratios between them, but there was no provision for replacement of the valuation list or a statutory cycle of revaluation. We think that council tax revaluation is necessary. That is why we have this clause in the Bill and why the Government are pressing ahead with seeking parliamentary approval for these powers.
  I am assured that there is no surprise about this. It is true that I was dealing with other matters at the time. In the Green Paper, White Paper, draft Bill and this Bill there is no surprise about revaluation. If all the properties in the county always increase at the same average, there is no point in revaluation. Relative differences do not change. However, life is not like that. If anything, we should have had a revaluation after the first five years in 1997. I suspect that the then Government could not have got a Bill through the House of Commons let alone through the House of Lords on this issue. It is a very sensitive issue. Areas where values have increased more than average are at an advantage compared to areas where values have increased less than average.
  Paragraph 367 of the Explanatory Notes estimates the cost of the proposed revaluation of domestic properties to be in the region of £200 million, including the cost of handling appeals. That is only a broad estimate because the costs would be affected by the method used. Decisions have not yet been taken on this issue. We are some way down the road in 2003 in that respect. I can tell from the other amendments that that will not satisfy the noble Lord. However, that is the reason. If everything always stayed the same there would be no reason for revaluation, but things do not always stay the same.
  Lord Hanningfield: One of the problems of establishing council tax, which replaced community charge/poll tax, which replaced rating, and the reason that rating was unpopular, concerned revaluation. The community charge/poll tax was introduced in Scotland because of revaluation. I know that because I listened to Ministers talking about it at the time. There was chaos in Scotland with revaluation. The then
  GC 220
  Conservative government thought that they did not ever want to revalue again. Governments tend to lose elections after revaluations, so perhaps we should have the revaluations in 2004 rather than later.
  I do not believe that the Minister has given an adequate answer as to why £200 million has to be spent on revalution. I know that property values move around, but the system could be left the same and the £200 million spent on something better, such as services for elderly people. I do not believe that the Minister has given an adequate answer. I am sure we shall come back to this. There are other amendments. The whole issue of revaluation, the cost, whether or not it is needed, and banding is a large area which will be contentious. We shall obviously debate it in Committee and I am sure at later stages in the Bill. In the spirit of moving on, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 168:
  Page 40, line 32, leave out "2005" and insert "2007"
  The noble Lord said: At present, Clause 78 differentiates between England and Wales with regard to revaluation. Whereas a new list must be compiled in relation to billing authorities in England on 1st April 2007, for Wales the list is to be compiled on 1st April 2005. Amendment No. 168 queries why the two are treated differently. If it is simply for administrative convenience, could the Minister say whether, somewhere down the line, he foresees separate revaluation cycles for different elected regions. which the Government are so keen on? I beg to move.
  The Earl of Caithness: I should have liked my noble friend's amendment to have read "Line 31, leave out '2007' and insert '2005"" for the very reason that he gave. I was Minister of the Environment when revaluation was considered. As my noble friend said, it frightened many in Scotland. If he had changed the English date to 2005, at least the Labour Party would have had to live with its decision. If it is left at 2007, the noble Lord, Lord Rooker. will be in opposition and my noble friend will be the Minister of State.
  7.15 p.m.
  Baroness Maddock: It seems that everyone is worried about revaluation. The purpose of the amendment is to provide for revaluation to happen every 10 years. I support the Minister on the issue. There have been huge changes in house prices around the country; therefore, there must be revaluation every so often. However, there could be problems if there is not provision for when revaluation should take place. It seems good that everyone should know when it would happen.
  I read that a Member in another place said that revaluation would not happen more frequently than every 10 years because it costs so much. About 10 years ago, when I was first elected to another place, almost all my caseload dealt with appeals on the value of people's houses which determined their banding. It is

  GC 221
  not an easy process, but if difficult decisions must be made, I support fixed-term revaluations—like fixed-term Parliaments.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The reason for the two different dates is on practical grounds. England could not be ready in 2005 because the task there is much bigger. I am sure that the noble Earl knows that there are 20 million properties subject to revaluation in England and only 1 million in Wales. We have taken account of the views of the National Assembly for Wales, which decided that it would like the revaluation sooner than we planned for England. The Valuation Office Agency was able to accommodate that in its work programme. It is a simple explanation of the reason.
  Lord Hanningfield: It looks as if we might do rather better in Wales at the general election than in England, given those dates. With that explanation, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Rooker: This might be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until tomorrow at 3.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: Before the Committee takes a decision on that, may I make a plea either for tomorrow's session to be moved to a room where the atmosphere is better or for something to be done about the atmosphere in this room? I suspect that that is not possible. Members of the Committee who have left the room and come back in will have been hit with the unpleasant atmosphere, which we probably do not notice so much when we are sitting here. Add to that
  GC 222
  the injection of petrol fumes again this afternoon and one realises that, although there are fans, which are very welcome, were it not for the absorbing excitement of the Bill we would have all fallen asleep in this atmosphere.
  Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness is quite right. I threatened last week that if something were not done I would take my coat off. That would create ructions. Revolution would come to this place. There is a shortage of rooms, and Black Rod is on the job, but there are not many more remaining sittings of the Committee. However, the situation applies to other people who must use the room. These are appalling circumstances. I do not know whether Rooms 4B or 4A would be better, but at least they have windows that could be opened and they would be perfectly satisfactory. I hope that Black Rod will consider the matter before tomorrow.
  The Earl of Caithness: Is there a reason why we are not continuing until 7.30 p.m.?
  Lord Rooker: Yes, for my personal convenience, to be honest. Is there a problem? I gave notice that I planned to finish just before 7.30 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: I am delighted to help the noble Lord if he would help us in return.
  Lord Rooker: You started late today. What is the problem?
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Geddes): The Committee stands adjourned until Tuesday 17th June at 3.30 p.m.
  Committee adjourned at nineteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  North/South Implementation Bodies: Budgets
  North/South Implementation Bodies: Budgets
  North/South Joint Secretariat
  North/South Joint Secretariat
  Language Implementation Body
  Language Implementation Body
  Waterways Ireland
  Waterways Ireland
  Ulster Scots and Irish Languages
  Ulster Scots and Irish Languages
  Peace II Funding
  Peace II Funding
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Budget
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure: Budget
  Iraq: Humanitarian Situation
  Iraq: Humanitarian Situation
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Tenancy Money
  Tenancy Money
  Veterinary Medicines
  Veterinary Medicines
  Employment Act 2002
  Employment Act 2002
  North West Science and Daresbury Development Group
  North West Science and Daresbury Development Group