Sitting of 17 June 2003

Preamble
The House met at half-past Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    MERSEY TUNNELS BILL
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Tuesday 24 June.

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

    Skye Bridge
    Pete Wishart: What recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive about the levying of tolls on the Skye bridge. [119402]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): There have been no recent discussions with the Scottish Executive about the levying of tolls because, as the hon. Gentleman ought to know, all issues relating to the administration of the Skye bridge fall entirely within the jurisdiction of the Scottish Parliament.
    Pete Wishart: I thank the combined Secretaries of State for Transport and for Scotland for that answer. May I congratulate him on acquiring the poisoned chalice that is the post of Secretary of State for Scotland? We look forward with great interest to seeing how his job-share arrangements with Lord Falconer work out.
    The Secretary of State will know that there is a great question mark over the legality of the collection of tolls on the Skye Bridge, as the assignation order that allows that collection is neither signed nor dated. Does he share my concern about that and, following the saga of the botched private-finance initiative—which this House initiated—does he agree that the collection of tolls for the bridge should be abolished immediately?
    Mr. Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am grateful for his congratulations, which I am sure were heartfelt. Two poisoned chalices are probably better than one. I am well aware of the long drawn-out saga of the Skye bridge, but it is a matter that is entirely
    192
    for the Scottish Executive and Parliament, and it would therefore be quite wrong of me to offer any opinion or give them any advice. It is a matter for them.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: The proof of the chalice will be in the drinking. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to have regular discussions about that and other matters with the Secretary of State for Scotland?
    Mr. Darling: I have no intention of discussing with the Scottish Executive matters that are entirely within their province. As I have said over the past few days, devolution has changed this country's constitution dramatically. With regard to the post of Scottish Secretary, the hon. Gentleman—who I know prides himself on his knowledge of constitutional matters—might be interested in the following quotation. Indeed, it might be of interest to the whole House:
    "Scotland must be represented in Westminster and in the Cabinet. We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."
    That comes from the Conservative party manifesto at the last election.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are not situations likely to arise in which my right hon. Friend may have to go to himself and tell himself that he has no case?
    Mr. Darling: No. My hon. Friend will be pleased to know that I have made a habit of not talking to myself for the past 49 and a half years. If I am spared, as my mother would say, I intend to continue that practice.

    School Buses
    Adam Price: What recent assessment he has made of the safety of school buses in England and Wales. [119403]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): There is no specific category of school bus in UK regulations. Any bus, coach or minibus may be used for dedicated school-to- home transport. In that context, therefore, it is imperative that we keep assessing and researching all aspects of the safety of all of those forms of transport.
    Adam Price: I thank the Minister for that reply, which bears out what many hon. Members already know—that the regulations governing the transportation of live cattle are more stringent than those governing the transportation of children to and from school. Will the Minister undertake to review, for instance, the 50-year-old rules that allow three children to be placed in seats designed for two? The same rules permit up to 22 children to stand in a bus, even when the journey takes in a motorway. Are not those both examples of yet more accidents waiting to happen?
    Mr. McNulty: It is entirely unlike the nationalists to make cheap points about something as important as child safety. A range of matters is under ongoing consideration. The point about live animals and children is not accurate, as the hon. Gentleman knows.

    193
    Special yellow school buses are being used in various pilot schemes in England and Wales. They have operational features such as dedicated drivers, allocated seats and timetables for pick-ups. There has been exhaustive research into the three-for-two regulations, which are on the way out anyway under the post-1998 regulations. The matter is taken very seriously: the assessment of and research into safety for children on buses are of paramount importance in the Department.
    Roger Casale: My hon. Friend will be aware that children with special educational needs very often are transported between home and school by minicab. There have been problems, including in my area, with securing the right Criminal Records Bureau checks on both drivers and escorts. Will my hon. Friend seek an urgent meeting with the Minister for Children to address that issue, and to see how we can increase protection for that most vulnerable group of children?
    Mr. McNulty:My hon. Friend raises an important matter. Between the greater regulation of private minicabs in London and the discussions that I shall happily undertake with the new Minister for Children, I hope that we can resolve the situation, but it goes wider than travel for special needs children.

    Bypass (Worthing and Lancing)
    3. Tim Loughton: If he will make a statement on his practice in relation to meeting delegations from Worthing and Adur to discuss the need for a bypass around Worthing and Lancing. [119404]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): We have recently revisited our policy of meeting delegations while considering multi-modal study recommendations. Where there are issues of particular significance, we have decided that we should listen to the views of delegations.
    Tim Loughton:I am pleased to hear it. As the Minister well knows, the thorny problem of the Worthing bypass stretches back about 30 years, and congestion on the A27, exacerbated by the further house building being forced on the area, is acting as a brake on business investment. Why is it, therefore, that he refused to see a delegation from the West Sussex economic forum earlier in the year, and that in April he refused to see a delegation of local businesses headed by me and my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), yet recently he has apparently seen delegations from a number of environmental groups opposed to any road building in the area? Is not that double standards, and will he agree to meet proper delegations, representative of Worthing and the desperate need for a bypass in our area?
    Mr. Jamieson:The hon. Gentleman knows that I am not unwilling to meet him, because I did so last year on another matter related to his constituency. Our view was that such meetings could have led to some frustration; as he will appreciate, Ministers are somewhat constrained on such occasions because we could not hold discussions
    194
    that were seen to pre-empt the Government's formal response to any study. If he will accept that during such meetings Ministers would be very much in listening mode, I should be happy to meet a delegation and to hear his views about the bypass for Worthing and Lancing, the merits of which were certainly never recognised by previous Conservative Governments.

    London Airports (Regional Services)
    4. Mr. David Stewart: What plans he has to secure access to (a) Gatwick and (b) Heathrow for regional air services. [119405]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling):The issue of access to London airports for regional services will be addressed in the air transport White Paper, which, as the House will know, I plan to publish before the end of the year.
    Mr. Stewart:Does my right hon. Friend share my concern about the major lack of capacity at both Heathrow and Gatwick, and that regional air services are most at risk? Does he share my view that future aviation strategy must include a mix of public service obligations, specific slot allocations and regional-only runways?
    Mr. Darling:As I have said to my hon. Friend in the past, PSOs should be granted sparingly and only where they are justified. At present, there are a limited number of PSOs on loss-making routes, including those serving some of the islands in the west of Scotland. In relation to his constituency, he will be aware that there are four flights a day from Inverness to Gatwick and that a service to Luton has recently been introduced. Of course, if services from different parts of the country were withdrawn, the Government would have to consider that situation, but it would not be a good idea for us to change our policy and to start granting PSOs on the chance that a problem might arise, as the inevitable result would be that airlines would conclude that the Government were willing to pay for something that they were willing to do commercially. I have no intention of doing that.
    Richard Ottaway: Will the Secretary of State acknowledge that any further expansion at Gatwick by, say, building a second runway means breaking a legally binding agreement?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman will recall that when the High Court decided that the Government were wrong to exclude Gatwick, I made a statement to the House, on 28 November last year, in which I said that the reason the Government had not made proposals for a second runway at Gatwick was the long-standing agreement between the council and the then British Airports Authority, which precluded development before 2019. The High Court held that we were wrong in making that decision and that we had to consult on the basis that there could be development both before 2019 and afterwards. Subsequently, we extended the consultation process to the whole country, including proposals for Gatwick, as the hon. Gentleman must know.

    195
    The general point that we must all face up to, and which relates to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) a few moments ago, is that there is no doubt that, on any view, the south-east airports are under severe pressure. That means that we will have to take some difficult decisions. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) is well aware, most of us can probably agree that something needs to be done, but there is an awful tendency to suggest that it ought to be done somewhere else.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: Surely, given the earlier question about Inverness and the withdrawal of the service to Heathrow, there is an overwhelming case for the extension of runways and for new runways. Heathrow must be given that option sooner rather than later, with runways designated solely for regional use.
    Mr. Darling:I am not sure about the latter point, but I agree that we need to consider how we meet the pressures that the London and south-east airports face in particular. That is why the Government are conducting a very extensive consultation, which finishes at the end of this month. I have said on a number of occasions in the House that we cannot allow a period of uncertainty to continue too much longer beyond then, which is why I intend to publish a White Paper setting out the Government's strategic direction for airport development over the next 30 years; and I will do so by the end of this year.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: The Secretary of State will be aware of the strategic role that the British Midland flight from Teesside to Heathrow plays as a lifeline for businesses in the north of England. Will he ensure that that flight is guaranteed, not just through the air transport consultation paper, but through his slot allocation policy? What mechanism and channel does he intend to use to consult the Secretary of State for Scotland on air transport capacity in Scotland?
    Mr. Darling:The hon. Lady has clearly been working all night to produce such a contrived question, but not a very good one if I may say so. On her substantive point, the BMI flight from Teesside to London is an example of a very good regional service—it helps Teesside, and the position is similar to the services from Inverness and from Plymouth, which, as the hon. Lady will know, are currently under discussion because British Airways is withdrawing them. Of course, if a region makes a request to us about a flight, we will consider it, but it would be a mistake, as some countries have done, to start to designate PSOs in advance even though a problem may never arise. I should have thought that the hon. Lady agreed that the best possible option is to base such flights on commercial propositions, because that is a much better way to ensure that they last in the longer term. I find it hard to believe it, but perhaps the Conservatives now advocate wholesale subsidies where none are required.
    Jonathan Shaw: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the number of bird strikes that would occur if an airport were created at Cliffe
    196
    would make it impossible to operate and far too dangerous? Given that it is a non-starter, can he confirm whether Cliffe is now well and truly off the agenda?
    Mr. Darling:I understand the position that my hon. Friend advocates, but I have made it very clear that the Government will take the decisions in relation to the whole consultation and airport development in the UK at the same time. It would be quite wrong of us to start taking piecemeal decisions, as that would soon lead to great difficulties and, I have not the slightest doubt, to rich pickings for m'learned friends in the courts. I understand my hon. Friend's position, but he will have to wait until the end of the year, when we publish our White Paper setting out the strategic direction that we think necessary for the next 20 to 30 years.

    Multi-modal Studies
    5. Mr. Andrew Lansley: What representations he has received about the implementation of first-wave multi-modal studies. [119406]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling):We have received representations on a number of issues raised by those studies, including, of course, implementation.
    Mr. Lansley: The Secretary of State should be aware that today is the last day to make further objections to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough structure plan, where an essential issue is the location of a large new settlement in my constituency, next to Longstanton in the Cambridge to Huntingdon corridor—the subject of a first-wave multi-modal study. To inform that debate, will the Secretary of State tell us today whether the Government intend to provide parallel roads and access roads alongside the A14 by 2006, as well as the financial support sought by Cambridgeshire county council for a rapid transit system from St. Ives to Cambridge?
    Mr. Darling:The hon. Gentleman will be aware that, last year, we published the outcome of the Cambridgeshire-Huntingdon multi-modal study, which included substantial upgrading and improvement to the A14 and various junctions, as well as a guided bus route, which Cambridgeshire county council promoted and is doing further work on. All those proposals are being worked up at the moment. I hope that they will be developed, consulted on and put in place as quickly as possible. He will know that area pretty well, as he represents part of it, and I have not the slightest doubt that we need to ensure that the transport infrastructure is adequate to deal with existing problems and the transport pressures that we know will come from any extension in the future.
    Mrs. Anne Campbell: Given that the Cambridge to Huntingdon multi-modal study proposed a rapid transit system between Huntingdon and Cambridge to cope with the level of traffic at present and to take pressure off the A14, does my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State agree that the 8,000 additional homes at Oakington will put further pressure on that

    197
    transport infrastructure? As well as looking at the feasibility of the rapid transit system, will he look at the adequacy of what is currently proposed?
    Mr. Darling:My hon. Friend raises a perfectly understandable point. In this country generally, many parts of the transport infrastructure are not adequate for the pressures that we have today. If we are to have any significant development, we need to make sure that the transport infrastructure is in place to ensure that people can move around, whether on rapid transit systems, roads or railways. She is therefore right about that. The multi-modal studies, and particularly the one to which she refers, allow for substantial investment—some of which has been needed for 20 to 30 years—which will make a difference. Clearly, in respect of additional pressures that may arise because of planning decisions, we need to make sure that we can plan ahead so that people can move around in a satisfactory way.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: The Secretary of State will recall that, in relation to the south-east Manchester multi-modal study, his ministerial colleague agreed to meet an all-party deputation at the end of last year. Unfortunately, his other ministerial colleague, who is no longer with him, felt that his diary was too full to receive such a deputation. Will he now agree to reinstate that visit?
    Mr. Darling:Just so that people understand this, I am quite clear that if any Member of the House wishes to see a member of my ministerial team, unless there are very good reasons for not doing so, we will agree to meet. One of the reasons for being a Member of Parliament is to have such access to Ministers. Clearly, Members will weigh in the balance how often they need to see Ministers, but I want to make it clear that it is perfectly possible to see us. I think that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, before he left for Northern Ireland, mentioned something about a meeting—[Laughter.] He seemed to me like a man with a great weight off his shoulders as he sped off to Northern Ireland. All I can say is that one of my colleagues on the Front Bench—I do not know which unfortunate one it will be yet—will meet the hon. Gentleman in due course.
    Mr. David Clelland: Has my right hon. Friend had a chance to look at the multi-modal study for Tyne and Wear, particularly as it relates to the Al western bypass around Gateshead and Newcastle, one of the country's worst congested roads? Will he undertake to look at that urgently and, in particular, to bring forward comprehensive proposals for a solution to the problem? Will he also welcome the initiative by Nexus, the passenger transport executive, in its campaign to increase the use of public transport, particularly the Tyne and Wear metro system?
    Mr. Darling:I am aware of both proposals, which are part of one of the studies that I hope to deal with before the summer recess. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I hope to make a statement about six or seven multi-modal studies that need to be dealt with. I am aware of the issues in relation to the roads and the metro. My hon. Friend will understand that I am not in a position
    198
    to give commitments in respect of any of those things at the moment, but I am aware of them, and I am aware of the pressures that Newcastle and Gateshead, like a number of other areas in this country, face.
    Mr. Tim Collins: In the light of the multi-modal studies, will the Secretary of State tell the House whether he believes that Britain's transport system is currently getting better or worse?
    Mr. Darling:Many aspects of the transport system are getting better. To give one example, the west coast main line, one of the main arterial routes in this country, was last upgraded in the 1960s and 1970s. Successive Governments, both Labour and Tory, did not face up to the fact that they would have to renew and improve that line, with the result that, at the moment, it has severe problems with reliability. I am glad to report to the House that yesterday, as many Members will have seen, the Strategic Rail Authority confirmed a £9 billion investment in the west coast main line, which will allow, for example, up to four trains an hour to run to Birmingham, a two-hour running time to Manchester and an hour off the journey time to Glasgow. That is one example of how investment and better management will improve our railways, and the same can be said for roads. It will take time, but we are putting in the money and the management. Sadly, the hon. Gentleman's party is against both of those.
    Mr. Collins:Do not the multi-modal studies in fact show that motorway congestion has grown by between 50 and 250 per cent. since this Government came to office? Do not they in fact show that, in 2001, not a single inch of tarmac was added to the national road network anywhere? Do not they in fact show that future railway carriage orders are set to drop by 90 per cent. over the next eight years? Do not they in fact show, in terms of the announcements made yesterday, that rail services are being axed up and down the country? Will the Secretary of State confirm that the multi-modal studies confirm that passengers, motorists and taxpayers are paying more and more for a worse and worse service? Does he not recognise that the CBI says that it is deeply disappointed with this performance and that Transport 2000 says that the whole system is coming grinding to a halt?
    Will the Secretary of State tell the House today whether he can confirm that there is an absolute prohibition on any new rail services anywhere on the network? Will he tell us whether he can characterise the number of additional rail services that will now be axed? Does not he believe that all these problems indicate that we need a full-time, not part-time, Secretary of State for Transport?
    Mr. Darling:In relation to the hon. Gentleman's penultimate point, I can tell him that, in September this year, Britain's first new major railway for 100 years will open. The channel tunnel rail link is an example of public and private money going in to improve the railways.
    The hon. Gentleman asked a series of other questions. In relation to railway services, yes it is true that, at the beginning of this year, for example, and faced with hopeless reliability problems on the Virgin cross-country route, 180 out of a daily total of 18,000 trains a day were taken out of service. Let me tell the House the result. That timetable change came in three weeks ago,

    199
    and reliability on the Virgin cross-country route went from 67 per cent. to 78 per cent. in just three weeks. I make no apology for the fact that the SRA is doing precisely what should have happened years ago—putting in place a timetable that actually works. The SRA is dealing with the consequences of a botched privatisation implemented by the Conservative party.
    The hon. Gentleman is right about congestion. More cars are using the roads, but that is because the economy is growing. Some 1.5 million more people are in work than there were seven years ago—all thanks to a Labour Government. The difference is this: had we stuck to the road-building and transport plans that the Tories left us with, congestion on our trunk roads would have grown by 50 to 60 per cent. As a result of the investment that is taking place, we will reduce that rate of growth to between 1 and 15 per cent. It is an example of investment making up for decades of underinvestment, because the Tories slashed the road programme when they were in office.
    Whatever the difficulties we have in the transport system just now, there is nobody I know outside the Conservative party arguing for a 20 per cent. cut in spending. That is not the way to improve the railways, so when the hon. Gentleman next gets to the Dispatch Box, I hope that he might at least have a stab at developing a transport policy, something that he has conspicuously failed to do in the past 12 months.

    Bus Transport
    Helen Jackson: What action he is planning to take to increase use of bus transport. [119407]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): We have established the Bus Partnership Forum to bring together bus operators and local authorities to identify how we can work together to increase bus use. As part of the 10 year transport plan review, we are also reviewing the subsidies that we provide to buses—totalling more than a £1 billion a year—so that they are better focused on achieving increased bus use.
    Helen Jackson:I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I warmly welcome him to his new job.
    I accept what my hon. Friend says. When there is a joint partnership between local authorities, bus operators and the Government, we get increased numbers of passengers on buses because of more frequent services, cheap fares and the good management of bus priority schemes. In Sheffield, the new Labour authority is extremely keen to provide just that and to take a different approach to the appalling one taken to public transport by the previous Liberal Democrat administration in the city. Will the Minister assure us that he will work with Members of Parliament for Sheffield and the local authority to ensure that unnecessary competition does not stand in—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Lady will apply for an Adjournment debate on this matter.
    Mr. McNulty:I know that my hon. Friend met my right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar)
    200
    last week to discuss the partnership and that there were concerns about service charge withdrawals and fare increases. I am more than happy to stay in touch with Sheffield MPs to ensure that the partnership works. My hon. Friend is right to suggest that good visionary council leadership must be party to the partnership in addition to the private sector, and happily Sheffield now has that.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: In Macclesfield, the borough and county councils are developing a purpose-built new bus station, which I warmly welcome. Does the Minister accept that many villages around Macclesfield and in my constituency have an inadequate bus service? That is not helped by the fact that because of resources, the county council is having to reduce the frequency of bus services in many parts of my constituency, even if the services are already inadequate. Will the Minister examine that matter, and if I wish to discuss it with him, will he be happy to meet me?
    Mr. McNulty:I am always happy to meet the hon. Gentleman. I congratulate him on his new bus station, and I take his point about outlying areas and continuing difficulties surrounding rural buses. When we meet I shall, at least in part, give him a history lesson on the plight of rural buses under the past Conservative Government.
    Geraldine Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware of the congestion caused by parents dropping off their children at schools from cars. He will also know that increased use of school buses could ease that congestion. Will he update the House on progress made between the Department for Education and Skills and the Department for Transport on pilot schemes to encourage schoolchildren to use school buses?
    Mr. McNulty:As I said in answer to an earlier question, a range of yellow bus pilot schemes are being conducted in England and Wales and, to be perfectly honest, we are still assessing their impact. I take my hon. Friend's comments to heart. We are not necessarily against the school run but it has proved time and again to be a pinch point for congestion, not least in many suburban areas. The issue is worth considering and the American model is but one way in which we might go forward. Many other environmental and traffic-calming schemes around schools, in a comprehensive fashion, should also be part of the process, as should the walking-bus scheme.
    Jim Dobbin: I would dearly love to see greater use of bus transport by the public, but the services in my area provided by First buses fall way below the standards expected. Will my hon. Friend give further consideration to regulation of the buses?
    Mr. McNulty:Although I am aware of what is going on in Rochdale in other capacities, I am not fully up to speed—no pun intended—on its bus provision. As I told my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson), a visionary local authority and a bus

    201
    company that comes to the table with the desire to improve and work with the local community are required. I am more than happy to talk to my hon. Friend about Rochdale in that regard to find out whether we can satisfy the situation.
    Mr. John Bercow: By 2010, what is the expected percentage increase of bus usage in rural areas?
    Mr. McNulty:Another clever little question straight out of "Top of the Form". As the hon. Gentleman would expect, the short answer is, "I don't know", which is the third time that I have said that to him from the Dispatch Box. I am more than happy to share a cup of tea with him to discuss the matter further. Although he sadly did not take up that offer on the past two occasions, I hope that he does this time.

    Rail Freight
    Alan Simpson: What action he has taken to promote the use of rail services for the delivery of (a) mail and (b) other freight; and if he will make a statement. [119408]
    The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Dr. Kim Howells):The carriage of mail by rail is a commercial issue between the Royal Mail and its contractors. In May, the Strategic Rail Authority published its first "Freight Progress Report" explaining achievements to date in increasing rail's overall share of freight traffic and its future plans. Rail freight is now at its highest rate since 1980. A copy of the report is in the Library of the House.
    Alan Simpson: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new ministerial position. I am sure that it is a little early for him to want to take full credit for the Government's policy of encouraging the shift of freight transport from road to rail, which has the support of the House and the country. What discussions has his Department held with Royal Mail on what the public regard as the catastrophically irresponsible decision to shift its freight from rail to road? What environmental impact assessment has been made on that decision?
    Dr. Howells: I have had no such discussions. In the half-hour or so of briefing that I had this morning when it was impressed on me that I was no longer dealing with alcohol licensing, but with vehicle licensing I was not informed of that, and I shall certainly try and find out about it for my hon. Friend.
    I heard the same message as my hon. Friend: that Royal Mail is taking seriously the environmental impact of the move from rail to road. We will see about that and test it. It has also expressed the view that it is not disappointed with the performance of English Welsh and Scottish Railway. The issue is about cost. As my hon. Friend knows, Royal Mail recently experienced some major changes. I have no doubt that it has considered its cost base and efficiency and has made
    202
    serious decisions about how it will operate in future. However, I take his message on board and shall try to discover what discussions have taken place.
    Mr. Don Foster: I, too, warmly welcome the Minister to his new post. However, I must tell him that the information he gave to the House a few moments ago was incorrect. In the calendar year of 2002, the amount of freight on rail sadly declined for the first time in a number of years. That will not be helped by Royal Mail's disastrous decision.
    Given that the Minister said that Royal Mail will look at the environmental impact, will he explain why he also said that that factor should not be taken into consideration despite the Government's guidance to Postcomm that environmental matters must be taken into account? It is not just a commercial decision. As environmental considerations are important, will he at least agree, as the hon. Member for Nottingham, South (Alan Simpson) suggested, to knock heads together to sort the problem out and to keep the mail on rail?
    Dr. Howells:Those are essentially two private companies that are involved in commercial negotiations. I do not intend to interfere in any way in those negotiations. I am, however, interested in the environmental and economic impacts. There is no question about it; they are very important. But I stress that I am also worried about the customers of Royal Mail. Its future in terms of employment and the service that we all receive from it depends on Royal Mail being the most efficient company in what is rapidly becoming a competitive environment. I will give that matter careful consideration and maintain some degree of judgment, which I hope will please the hon. Gentleman.
    Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Will my hon. Friend acknowledge that in the long run i1 will not be in the interests of Royal Mail to add vast numbers of lorries to our roads? It must know that. When he starts his inquiries, will he look carefully at the disadvantages that people suffer when they negotiate rail contracts? There are extra problems for rail freight. We should be sympathetic and see what we can do to help.
    Dr. Howells: Yes, I am aware that there has been a long-running vociferous debate on how we compare freight that is carried by road with freight that is carried by rail. I shall bear my hon. Friend's advice in mind.
    Mr. Christopher Chope: I, too, warmly congratulate the Minister on his promotion and on taking on such important responsibilities. Does he accept that he is not correct in regarding the issue as purely commercial? English Welsh and Scottish Railway has written to a number of hon. Members stating:
    "Royal Mail is unable to reclaim VAT as a state-owned entity, while it incurs no VAT on internally provided road services. The resultant 17.5 per cent. cost differential is a principal price issue".
    Will the Minister accept that that is a responsibility for the Government? Does he agree that it is just another example of a failure to have joined-up government?

    203
    Does he accept the headline in The Independent today, which says: "Derailed: How transport has become Labour's most spectacular failure"?
    Dr. Howells: The Independent front page is graphic, dramatic and arresting. I am not sure about the content; I have not had a look at it yet. I shall judge that some other time. It looks a bit conceptual to me.
    It is astonishing to hear what the hon. Gentleman says. He knows that I have great regard for him, but he was one of the arch-privatisers of the 1980s. Whether in a passive or actual role, there was no doubt that he was an architect of what turned out to be one of the most botched privatisations in history. He should not be churlish about the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has done an enormous amount during the short time in which he has been in his job to try to repair the damage done by that botched privatisation. I am certain that we will have a much better rail system very shortly.
    Kali Mountford: The Royal Mail has made a commercial decision, but we are living in an age of corporate social responsibility. Is it not important to have regard for a key plank of Government policy and encourage freight by rail, not just because of the impact on the environment but because of the impact on the industry as a whole? Two industries are working against one another, but should not a decision be taken in the public interest instead of in the commercial interest?
    Dr. Howells:I do not regard the two industries as working against each other. The amount of freight carried on the railways is an important part of the total freight carried in this country, but it is a very small percentage. We must get that into perspective. Anything that we can do to relieve congestion is extremely important, but on matters such as corporate social responsibility the Royal Mail has had a very good record until now, as indeed did the Post Office. I am sure that those complex issues have been taken into consideration, but they are not easy to resolve, given the commercial arrangement between two important companies such as the Royal Mail and EWS. However, I am quite certain that their respective boards will have discussed those things.
    Mr. John Redwood: Why cannot a nationalised post service do a deal with a Government-regulated industry through the Strategic Rail Authority and a largely nationalised track system under Network Rail to get what we all want—an environmentally sensible answer to carrying the post? Does that not show that nationalisation is bad for the environment, and that the wheels have fallen off the Government's freight transport policy?
    Dr. Howells: With respect, the right hon. Gentleman is a little out of date on the nature of those companies, which are organisations that operate privately and draw up their own plans. I remember being in the Chamber on many occasions when he argued that one of the great problems with nationalised industry, which he has just raised again, is the fact that it does not have the flexibility and the imagination to be able to respond to changing circumstances. Those companies are taking
    204
    seriously the difficult problem of moving something as vital as mail around the country, and are trying to work out how the best infrastructure and operating system can be achieved. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would welcome such assessments as a way of providing the best possible value for customers who, in the end, are the people who count. The deliverers are, of course, important, but if the country does not have a good Royal Mail service we are in big trouble.

    British Transport Police
    Kate Hoey: What plans he has to increase the resourcing to the British Transport police to cope with increased demands for policing of football. [119409]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): The resources available to the British Transport police are a matter for the BTP committee, which oversees the force and sets its budget. The rail industry, including London Underground, Network Rail and the train operating companies, are responsible for providing the necessary funding, not central Government.
    Kate Hoey:I thank my hon. Friend. However, is he aware of the enormous pull on transport police time during a normal weekend of football matches? Does he share my view that football is the only sport that requires such a massive amount of policing, both by the BTP and other police? Does he not think that it is time that football should have to ring-fence a tiny percentage of the huge amount of money that it gets from Sky and other television companies and give it to the BTP and other police for policing a sport that can no longer be watched peacefully?
    Mr. McNulty: I certainly agree with my hon. Friend that on some Saturdays football increases the lot and load of the British Transport police. For example, since the closure of Wembley stadium, there have been 36 matches for which central funding has been available for Home Office forces, but not the BTP. A survey on 4 January 2003 estimated that the additional cost for the BTP of policing matches on that day was £142,000. The Government maintain that it is the responsibility of the industry to meet those costs, and how it does so is up to it. However, I share my hon. Friend's sentiments.
    Mr. David Heath: Is it not the case that almost more than for any territorial force, the key objectives for the British Transport police must be deterrence and reassurance, and that that is achieved by visibility of patrols on trains and the tube? Should not that be a prime objective of the British Transport police authority, and should not the resources be available to make sure that there are enough officers to be visible on our trains and tube?
    Mr. McNulty: Whatever other changes have been made over the past couple of weeks, for the British Transport police the world is as it was on 1 April 2003, when the hon. Gentleman raised the matter of the BTP with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my

    205
    right hon. Friend the Member for Warley (Mr. Spellar) when he was in the Department for Transport. My right hon. Friend said then:
    "The British Transport police play a full part in the British police service within their railways jurisdictions, including the prevention and detection of terrorism."—[Official Report, 1 April 2003; Vol. 402, c. 789.]
    That remains the case and is an important part of their role.

    Maritime Transport
    Mr. Alan Reid: What plans he has to seek changes to European Union regulations regarding state aid to maritime transport services; and if he will make a statement. [119410]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): The UK supports the European Commission in its aim of clarifying the interpretation of the current legislation. To this end, the European Commission, on its own initiative, presented proposed revisions of Community guidelines on state aid to maritime transport to member states.
    Mr. Reid: Will the Minister try to persuade our EU partners of the need for flexibility in the regulations? The Scottish Executive are having difficulty implementing the regulations as they stand. For example, there are endless consultations on the future of the Dunoon-Gourock route, and while that is going on, Dunoon pier is in danger of falling into the sea through lack of repairs. There were consultations and tender documents drawn up for the Campbeltown to Ballycastle route, but so far they have not borne fruit. Will the Minister please go to Brussels and try to get some flexibility and common sense into the regulations?
    Mr. Jamieson: The Government recognise the importance of those ferry services to the islands. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the Commission will shortly publish the revised guidelines regarding state aid for maritime transport. That will give the flexibility that he wants, and benefit some of the smaller services in particular. However, the implementation of those policies will be for the Scottish Executive. Although Scottish nationalism has taken a bit of a hit in recent months, 1 am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not advocate that those matters should be taken on centrally by the Westminster Government.

    Mobile Phones
    Linda Gilroy: What action he is taking to tackle road safety issues arising from drivers using mobile phones. [119411]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): We consulted last year on a proposal to ban the use of hand-held mobile phones by drivers. We plan to make an announcement on the way forward as soon as possible.
    Linda Gilroy: I am sure that my hon. Friend is aware that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents says that one in four drivers admit to using a mobile
    206
    phone or texting while driving. May I urge him to bring those proposals forward as a matter of urgency? In the mean time, will he join me in congratulating the police in Plymouth and Devon on the campaign that they ran last month, using existing powers to crack down on inappropriate phone use? Does he agree with Plymouth's road safety officer, PC Duncan Russell, that "missing a call won't kill you, but having an accident may"?
    Mr. Jamieson: I thank my hon. Friend. She will be pleased to know that we share her concerns. I pay tribute to the work that she has done on the matter. She said that one quarter of people admitted to using a mobile phone at some time for making a call or texting. We know that at any one time, one in 40 people are using a mobile phone while they are driving, and putting themselves and others at risk. I applaud the efforts being made by Devon and Cornwall police using the current law. My hon. Friend will not have to wait very long before the Government make an announcement on the matter, which is of great public concern.

    Low-cost Air Travel
    Mr. John Randall: If he will make a statement on the change in low-cost air (a) passenger numbers and (b) traffic movements in the last five years. [119412]
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Alistair Darling): Passengers on low-cost carrier flights through UK airports, both domestic and international, have increased substantially in recent years, from 7.7 million passengers in 1998 to 35.4 million last year. Air traffic movements increased over the same period from 86,000 in 1998 to 308,000 in 2002.
    Mr. Randall: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. Does it not indicate to him that some of the projected growth in air movements and air traffic might mean that the issue comes down to the small regional airports associated with low-cost flights, rather than the major airports?
    Mr. Darling: Up to a point. Interestingly, although there has been a dramatic growth in the low-cost no-frills airlines, many of whose services are point-to-point between regional airports either in this country or continental Europe, there is still a growth in travel on conventional scheduled airlines. What we have to do is reach a judgment on whether this recent rapid development of low-cost airlines is likely to change the whole pattern of air travel in future or whether it will add to the pressures on the conventional hub-and-spoke operation at Heathrow, for example. We will address that issue during discussions prior to the publication of the White Paper at the end of the year, but the hon. Gentleman is right to say that there has been a phenomenal increase in low-cost airlines in the past five years in respect of airports that many people had thought until now were almost doomed to closure. That is one of the issues that we will need to take into account.

  The Minister for the Cabinet Office was asked—
  CABINET OFFICE

    Sunset Clauses
    Dr. Vincent Cable: What his policy is on the use of sunset clauses in subordinate legislation; how many such clauses have been introduced since June 1997; and if he will make a statement. [119452]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): Revised guidance on regulatory impact assessments was published on 28 January 2003, advising officials to consider time-limiting or sunsetting regulations and encouraging use of those tools where appropriate. While the Cabinet Office actively promotes the better regulation agenda, it does not collate the specific information centrally. My Department has introduced no legislation containing sunset clauses.
    Dr. Cable:I congratulate the Minister on his promotion in the Cabinet Office, but I suggest to him that whatever he did to earn it, it probably has very little to do with his less than stellar performance in the field of deregulation. Does he recall that, of the seven major achievements touted to business last year in respect of deregulation, one involved lifting restrictions on the sale of electric kettle descalers while another involved liberalising the sale of methylated spirits on Sundays? Would he not make faster progress if all new legislation incorporated a sunset clause from the outset?
    Mr. Alexander:I thank the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically warm words of congratulation. I shall make two points on the substantive issues that he raised. First, the sunset clause is only one of the tools available to advance the regulatory reform agenda that this Government are pursuing. Secondly, I would rather focus on the recent comments of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, which said:
    "The U.K. is at the forefront of regulatory reform in the OECD, it has already made major improvements and has planned more."
    That is just the latest external verification of the strength of the regulatory reform agenda that has not only been pursued by my predecessors, but is now being carried forward by the Cabinet Office.

    E-Government
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on progress towards introducing e-government. [119453]
    Paul Flynn: What new proposals he has to extend e-government services. [119457]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The latest electronic service delivery survey shows that 63 per cent. of services were e-enabled at the end of 2002, and Departments have forecast that they are on track for the 2005 target. We recently enhanced that target to ensure that certain key services achieve high levels of use.
    Mr. Robathan: That is encouraging in so far as it goes, but has the Minister read the Accenture report on e-government, which states that, although the United Kingdom
    "has been a strong e-Government performer",
    it
    "looks to have stalled somewhat of late"?
    The report points out that
    "the biggest concern for the government is the low number of citizens using online government services."
    Indeed, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry has pointed out that only one in 10 UK citizens have used online Government services, compared with half the Canadian population. How does the Minister see this issue as going forward?
    Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman makes a number of important points. Initially, we were driving forward our commitment to ensure that all Government services are e-enabled. That continues to be the agenda that we advance towards 2005. However, for exactly the reasons that he raised, we have also committed ourselves to enhance that target and ensure that we drive up, usage levels. We are specifically considering the Canadian example. Canada has a single citizen portal, which is one of the key reasons why its level of usage is significantly higher than in many other countries. In that regard, I hope that we can make proposals in due course that allow us to harness best practice from abroad as we enhance our agenda for e-government.
    Paul Flynn:Although we have not reached the level of the world leader, Canada, the growth in e-government has been commendable in terms of the increase in usage and the innovation that has taken place. However, is it not disappointing that the two groups who could probably gain the most from using e-government are not using it? Only one in 10 of the elderly and one in six of the poorest families have access to the internet. What plans does the Minister have to ensure that that increases?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. We have established 6,000 UK Online centres across the country, particularly serving low-income and deprived communities where access to the internet might otherwise not be available. In recent weeks, the e-envoy's office has been taking forward a nationwide campaign that is specifically targeted at the kind of groups that my hon. Friend identifies. I am glad to say that in my constituency of Paisley, South, a burgeoning number of silver surfers are taking advantage of public access to the internet, which previously would not have been available.
    Finally, to give a sense of scale, over the coming year the Government are investing about?6 billion in information and communications technology. We are determined to ensure that that investment serves not just one section of the community, but precisely those sections that my hon. Friend mentioned.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Minister referred to the Government's target of putting all services online by 2005. Can he confirm whether he expects to be judged on that target at the beginning or

    209
    the end of 2005? Will he ensure that any reports that are produced as part of that process give full information on any problems or failures in meeting the target, as those are likely to be important in learning for future development?
    Mr. Alexander: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, e-government, not least because of the scale of public investment involved, is not only reported on by the Government through the work of the e-envoy, but has, appropriately, been the subject of a number of reports of this House. There is little to fear in terms of the transparency of the work that we will undertake in relation to the 2005 targets.
    To update the House, in 2002–03, 64,000 people applied for a passport online and 160,000 people applied to university online. I am therefore confident that we continue to make progress. The 2005 target has been vital in persuading Departments that we are serious about getting every single service online that we can. However, I am not complacent, and the work in government continues.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Does my hon. Friend agree that the issue is no longer technology, but the political will to join up Departments to make things work? It is still the case, for example, that a constituent dealing with a death will have to deal with up to a dozen or more Departments. When are the Government going to ensure that there is a genuine one-stop shop to deal with key life events?
    Mr. Alexander: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Indeed, I am corresponding on the subject with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (James Purnell). It reflects the fact that this technology should not be seen solely as a technological fix for some of the challenges that we encounter, but rather as a platform on which we can develop genuinely citizen-centred services. The speech that the Prime Minister is making today at the Fabian Society reflects the far broader agenda, of which ICT is only one part, of modernising the public services that were so ravaged by a lack of investment by the Conservative party.
    Mr. Philip Hammond: Referring again to the Minister's target of 2005 for making all public services, including local government services, accessible online, will he acknowledge that there is a problem of definition, and that it is not sufficient for services merely to be nominally available online? Can he confirm that the criterion that he will use for measuring success in achieving the 2005 target is a significant degree of interactivity on departmental and local authority websites?
    Mr. Alexander: To use the technological jargon, we are moving towards a multi-channel future. I am pleased to say that in meeting the 2005 target, the use of contact centres plays an important role in the interactivity that the hon. Gentleman identifies. In my constituency, and in constituencies across the country, people are already interacting with local government, not only through email, but by using contact centres. Interactivity is vital: that is why we have specifically targeted key services to drive up usage.

    Public Appointments
    Dr. Ian Gibson: What steps are being taken to encourage members of the public to take up public appointments. [119454]
    The Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Douglas Alexander): The Government are committed to ensuring greater access to public appointments. My Department launched a new public appointments vacancy website on 27 March. It provides vacancy details—there are currently more than 100—and information on how to apply.
    Dr. Gibson: I congratulate my hon. Friend on making a unique journey from Paisley to the Duchy of Lancaster. I hope that he has found where it is. Not everybody has access to the internet, and that creates a problem. Does my hon. Friend agree that many groups in our society—for example, young people and the disabled—do not take up public appointments? Does he further agree that a reason for that is that the old lags on committees often patronise the new people and tell them, "That was very interesting. Now sit back and have mother cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit"?
    Mr. Alexander: I thank my hon. Friend for his warm words of congratulation on my promotion. Let me return the favour and say that he is unique in the House in having made the journey from playing for Paisley's distinguished football team, St. Mirren, to being a Norwich Member of Parliament.
    My hon. Friend made an important point about lack of access to the internet. It is precisely the reason why the Cabinet Office produced a newsletter for groups who do not have access. However, his broader point is also important. We are determined that we should have public appointments that genuinely reflect modern Britain rather than an outdated notion of the great and the good. We need to move that agenda forward expeditiously.
    Mr. Graham Brady: We want to encourage appointments as magistrates, among other public appointments, especially in the Duchy of Lancaster. Will the Minister confirm that in January, the Department vetoed the appointment of 10 magistrates to the Trafford bench on the ground of their political beliefs or views? Does he agree that giving the impression that people will be judged on their views rather than their merit and ability is no way to encourage them to apply for public appointments?
    Mr. Alexander: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. A candidate's political views neither qualify nor disqualify them for appointment. In the interests of balance, it is a requirement that the composition of the bench should broadly reflect the voting pattern for the area, as evidenced by the last two general elections. However, the priority must be to ensure the effective working of the judicial system. That is our goal.

Points of Order
12.32 pm
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. No doubt you will have had the chance to look at today's Hansard. The first page of a new volume of Hansard usually contains a full list of the Government. That was last done on 3 June, when volume 406 began. The first page contained details of
"Her Majesty's Government … formed by"
the Prime Minister in
"June 2001".
When I went to the Vote Office today to ask for a paper copy of a Government list, I was told that former list was the only one available.
Today's Hansard, which is a new volume, begins:
"The Parliamentary Debates … in the first Session of the fifty-third Parliament of the United Kingdom … [which opened on 13 June 2001].
It continues with Question Time and does not provide a Government list. There appears to be some confusion about who is doing what job, and about Ministers' seniority in the jobs. The confusion is compounded by the Order Paper. According to the Vote Office, we have not been officially informed about the change of Secretary of State for Scotland, yet according to the Order Paper,
"Right Hon Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Scotland"
will give evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee on
"Scotland Office Departmental Report 2003".
That is a remarkable conversion, given that the right hon. Gentleman has just answered questions on transport matters in the House.
Perhaps you can tell us what is going on, Mr. Speaker. Why cannot Hansard today give us the full Government list in the way that it normally would?
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving me notice of his point of order. I understand that, when Hansard went to press last night, a full list of the Government had not been received.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You very
212
kindly indicated to the House yesterday that you had made representations to the Prime Minister and that you would accept representations from us on any future recommendations that you might make to him. The House would like to know which Minister is responsible for which function in any one Department, because until we know who is responsible for what, we do not know whom to write to.
Mr. Speaker: May I say to the right hon. and learned Gentleman that there will be a statement by the Prime Minister tomorrow? In my absence, the Chairman of Ways and Means will look after things, and it is possible that the right hon. and learned Gentleman might catch his eye, although I will not give any guarantees.
Mr. Keith Simpson: Further to the points of order made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), Mr. Speaker. We shall shortly have a debate on this matter, and I see that the Leader of the House, who is on the Front Bench, is available. Would it perhaps be convenient for the House if he read out a list of Ministers and their responsibilities? This seems to be the perfect opportunity, and he has 10 minutes in which to go and consult with No. 10 and get a full list.
Mr. Speaker: Order.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not a revolutionary idea that Members of Parliament should know what they are doing? May I ask you to consider very carefully the replies that you give to the House, because if we are to know not only who is responsible for what but which individual Members are supposed to be doing what, should we not get into a most extraordinary situation—quite different from the one that we have had for the last 400 years?
Mr. Speaker: One thing is sure: I know my responsibility, which is to look after the business of the House. I shall therefore move on to the ten-minute Bill.

Older People's Rights Commissioner
12.36 pm
David Taylor: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an older people's rights commissioner to promote and protect the human rights of older people, to make provision in respect of the recognition of such rights by public and private bodies, to assist older people in respect of such rights, to make provision for the powers and duties of the commissioner and for related purposes.
There are 11 million people over pension age in the United Kingdom, including some 2.5 million people over the age of 80. While many older people live happy and fulfilling lives, some, sadly, face the most appalling abuses of their basic rights as human beings. It is for those people that I am advocating an older people's rights commissioner. The commissioner would have a broad remit to tackle the abuse of older people's rights wherever it occurred, and would ensure that older people were afforded the same rights as younger people in every aspect of life, from education and employment to transport and trade. In short, the commissioner would be a powerful advocate for the rights of older people, bringing to an end the tacit acceptance of abuse and neglect of those rights, which has become our national shame.
The area of health and social care illustrates most starkly the need for a commissioner. The gross breaches of older people's rights that occur in this field were laid bare in the BBC series "Britain's Secret Shame". Those recent programmes told sorry tales of cruelty and the exploitation of vulnerable older people who were in need of loving and sensitive care. The programme's title said it all: the picture that it painted was shameful. This problem has also remained largely secret, hidden from our view as a nation. But it should not remain secret any longer.
The programmes told the stories of older people whose treatment ranged from the careless and heartless to the systematically sadistic, and illustrated a culture of subtle and insidious neglect of the fundamental rights of older people as human beings. Let us take the case of Violet Townsend—known as Cissy—who was forced to move care homes because the local authority refused to meet the additional cost of £53 per week being demanded by the home. Despite Cissy's vulnerable state of health and her deep distress at the prospect of leaving her home, the local authority and the care provider failed to respond. Only five days after being forced to move homes, Cissy was dead. What a way to treat our most vulnerable citizens, who have a right to expect a safe old age.
But that was far from the most shocking story revealed in the series. One programme told of a Liverpool care home resident who was found to have had all her fingernails pulled out by a supposed care assistant. That was more than incompetence or negligence. It was worse than abuse. It was torture.
What is extraordinary is that abuses of that kind occur in a country that provides protection against such treatment. It is not that these older people do not have rights: they are covered by the same human rights legislation, the Human Rights Act 1998, that protects all
214
of us. Older people have the same right to life, the same right to freedom from inhuman or degrading treatment, the same right to a fair hearing, the same right to respect for private and family life, and the same right to peaceful enjoyment of their possessions. They all—we all—have those rights, without discrimination on any grounds. Furthermore, the rights are supported by a structure of standards including the national service framework for older people and the Care Standards Act 2000.
Those standards, however, do not always reflect a modern reality in which older people's rights are overlooked or violated with an alarming degree of impunity. We would never accept such treatment of our children, and cases of child abuse rightly provoke a sense of national outrage. So why, when faced with such treatment of our older people, have we remained silent for so long?
Help the Aged has gathered devastating evidence of abuses of the basic rights of older people over many years. As with the cases in the BBC series, most of the examples have occurred in care settings, and the victims have been people at their most vulnerable. There is the case of an Eastbourne lady with Alzheimer's disease who was found at an inquest last year to have died of dehydration in a care home because no one had taken time to understand that she needed help in eating and drinking. There is the case of a London man with dementia who was taken off his life-preserving heart medication when he moved into a care home, despite instructions from his wife, only to die a few weeks later. That is an extreme example of neglect, shown to be even worse when we learn that it was not even thought necessary to hold an inquest. What of those people's right to life?
There are numerous cases involving care home closures and care shortages. Some older people are forced into separation from families and even spouses by the rationing of care, with no regard being paid to their right to family life. Others, like Cissy Townsend, find that their health and indeed their lives are jeopardised by forced care home moves. At the weekend, the Daily Mail highlighted the case of 102year-old Winifred Humphrey in Kent, given notice by a profiteering care sector.
Yet more older people are forced to live in dire circumstances because of social services' failure to provide adequate care and assistance for them to have a decent life. One lady's mobility difficulties meant that she had to crawl up two flights of stairs to reach the bathroom, and social services were unable to visit to make an assessment for equipment or adaptations for several months. Where is the humanity in that? Surely no one could deny that such abuses need to end. Indeed, as I said earlier, they are illegal in this country. The British Institute of Human Rights, however, says that the Human Rights Act has not yet made a difference to the quality of care in residential homes. That is why we need to appoint an older people's rights commissioner to ensure that it does.
Most of the older people whose rights are currently being neglected are vulnerable. Some suffer from dementia, some lack the necessary financial means, and all are liable to feel daunted by the idea of standing up for their rights in a society that appears happy to ignore them. Without a commissioner, it will still be the case that only a small number are brave enough to assert

215
their rights—only a few individuals each year, taking on the system alone. Leaving challenges on the basis of human rights to the individual just will not work when it comes to dependent and powerless older people.
It is telling that the vast majority of cases of abuse are raised by a family member or friend, not by the older person involved. Help the Aged has identified a range of reasons why older people are often not in a position to pursue their rights on an individual level. There may be physical reasons. Older people may be too ill or lack energy, to the extent that just getting through the day is challenging enough. Others, such as stroke victims, may have difficulties in communicating. Sometimes there are mental health reasons. About two thirds of older people in care settings suffer from moderate or severe dementia, which impairs their ability to challenge their treatment and to be believed when they do complain. Often the reasons are psychological: older people share with other victims of abuse emotional reactions of depression or shame. Occasionally, older people in residential care settings simply lack the privacy to make telephone calls or to speak to someone about sensitive issues. Many are not aware of their rights, or lack information about whom to contact. Perhaps most worryingly, some older people fear reaction or retribution if they speak out about abuse.
The commissioner would play a real role in asserting older people's rights for them, working towards a society in which abuse of older people's rights is simply not tolerated, and away from a society in which the Christian commandment to honour our fathers and mothers is routinely ignored.
I recognise that work is under way to determine which structures should support older people in relation to equal treatment and human rights. Yes, we are working steadily towards the establishment of a single equality body with a strong remit for tackling age discrimination not just in employment and training, but in the provision of goods and services. And yes, there are long-
216
term plans to establish a robust and transparent human rights commission. An older people's rights commissioner could play an especially important role within such bodies when they are set up, working alongside, and shaping the actions of, human rights experts and equality experts. Such a commissioner could blaze a trail for the other commissioners on human rights, and could begin the process of making human rights count among some of the most vulnerable members of our society, so that they can grow old with dignity and without exposure to inhumane and degrading treatment.
We must not mark time until the 2006 starting date for the proposed equality body. We must ensure that older people's rights, as enshrined in law, guidance and rhetoric, become a reality without further delay. There is no one to speak for many older and vulnerable people. They need a voice now; they need protection now; they need recognition now; they need an older person's rights commissioner now.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by David Taylor, Ms Candy Atherton, Mr. Roger Berry, Mr. Harold Best, Mr. David Chaytor, Mr. David Drew, Paul Flynn, Linda Gilroy, Mr. John Horam, Dr. Brian Iddon, Mr. Andy Reed and Mrs. Betty Williams.

Older People's Rights Commissioner
  OLDER PEOPLE'S RIGHTS COMMISSIONER
  David Taylor accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the establishment of an older people's rights commissioner to promote and protect the human rights of older people; to make provision in respect of the recognition of such rights by public and private bodies; to assist older people in respect of such rights; to make provision for the powers and duties of the Commissioner; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 11 July, and to be printed [Bill 124].
Opposition Day
  9TH ALLOTTED DAY

    Government Reshuffle
    Mr. Speaker: We now come to the main business. I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
    12.48 pm
    Mr. Eric Forth: I beg to move,
    That this House notes the far-reaching constitutional implications of the changes to the machinery of Government announced in the Government reshuffle last week; deplores the total lack of consultation before the changes were announced and the confusion that has ensued since; is gravely concerned that the Prime Minister is abolishing the historic office of Lord Chancellor without any idea of what will take its place, and, in particular, how the independence of the judiciary is to be maintained; is unclear about the relationship between the spokesmen for Scotland and Wales in the House of Commons and the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, who appears to have executive responsibility for the functions of the Scotland and Wales Offices; regrets that the Prime Minister clearly regards the jobs of the Secretary of State for Transport and Leader of the House as part-time; further notes that the NHS in England and Wales is now to be run by a Secretary of State who has no control over health policies in his own constituency, and whose constituents will not be affected by the decisions he takes as Secretary of State for Health; and calls on the Prime Minister not to proceed with his plans for change until he has properly consulted on them.
    I begin by welcoming the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain) to his new position as part-time Leader of the House. I sincerely congratulate him on his marriage on Saturday, and wish him many years of happiness—and at least a few weeks as Leader of the House.
    Last Thursday, the Prime Minister's press office announced sweeping change to our constitution and our system of justice as a half-baked afterthought to the most botched and shambolic reshuffle in living memory. Since then, Mr. Speaker, as you are very well aware, the Prime Minister has not deigned to come to the House to explain what it all means. I suspect that he cannot explain because he does not know what it means, and he will not explain because I doubt whether he cares very much, either. But now he has left it to the poor old part-time Leader of the House to pick up the pieces.
    As a result of what the Prime Minister cobbled together between his trips overseas, the separate and distinct voices of Scotland and Wales in the Cabinet have been utterly confused and downgraded; a Scottish Member of Parliament is in charge of health in England, imposing on England a foundation hospital system that was rejected in Scotland, yet no English Member is allowed a say on health policy in Scotland. Another Scottish Member is responsible for transport in England while defending the interests of Scotland, yet is apparently reporting to an unelected English Minister in another place. Last Thursday—[Interruption.] Indeed, that Minister also happens to be a Scot, but I shall not hold it against him.
    Dr. Gavin Strang: I would like to help the right hon. Gentleman. With the Scottish Parliament in its second term, a case can be made, once we have tied up the legal niceties—[Interruption.]—I use the term "niceties" in its scientific sense. When we have disposed of some of the remaining functions—some to the Scottish Executive in Edinburgh, some to the appropriate Department in Whitehall—does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is time to make the Secretary of State for Scotland redundant in due course?
    Mr. Forth: After that, the right hon. Gentleman deserves a position as the Prime Minister's spokesman on the matter.
    Last Thursday, the West Lothian question became the Westminster question—a question about the competence of the Prime Minister, his openness and honesty with his own Cabinet colleagues, and the accountability of Ministers to Parliament. We now have chaos, confusion and conflicts of interest everywhere. However, Downing street's first task was to explain whether the Lord Chancellor still existed and, if not, who or what would perform the vacant role.
    The timetable of the sorry saga went something like this. On Thursday, the Government announced that a Department for Constitutional Affairs would replace the Lord Chancellor's Department. Lord Irvine, the Prime Minister's former boss, who objected to the changes, was sacked, and Lord Falconer, his former flatmate, was appointed to the new role of Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs—not Lord Chancellor. As part of the changes, the post of Lord Chancellor was to be abolished and his responsibilities as head of the English judiciary, Cabinet Minister and Speaker of the House of Lords reallocated.
    According to the Downing street website on Thursday, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that in the transitional period, Lord Falconer would not fulfil either the judicial function of Lord Chancellor or the role of Speaker in the House of Lords. On Friday, however, Lord Falconer had to be dragged to the Woolsack to assume his place there as Speaker, and he was forced to admit that he was, after all, the Lord Chancellor. Then, on Saturday, Lord Falconer said:
    "I will continue to be the Lord Chancellor and exercise his powers until such time as statutory arrangements can be made to replace it".
    That was always made clear. He then added graciously:
    "As long as the House of Lords wish the Lord Chancellor to sit on the Woolsack, I will continue to do that."
    We must pay tribute to him for that.
    There was then a need to explain plans for a supreme court and the Government's commitment to consult widely on their proposals. On Thursday, the Prime Minister announced the creation of a supreme court to replace the Law Lords. The role of the Lord Chancellor as head of the English judiciary would be "reallocated". A judicial appointments commission, an independent body to select new judges, would take over the responsibilities of the Lord Chancellor. Can the part-time Leader of the House tell us whether it will be six weeks after the Prime Minister's announcement of the

    219
    creation of the new bodies before the consultation papers are published—or will it be more? Apparently, that was the timetable that Downing street produced.
    Kevin Brennan: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise these words:
    "I must accept that we would need a supreme court of the kind that the United States has. I believe that the Supreme Court has served the US extraordinarily well and has, on occasion, been radically and robustly independent from both the Executive and the legislature".—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 653.]
    They are his own words from 1999 [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]. Does he recognise them?
    Mr. Forth: Yes, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this subject is a matter of legitimate debate and that what should happen now is contingent on proposals for the other place. The difference in our positions is that we believe that this matter should be properly debated, that a Green Paper and a White Paper should be published, that full discussion should take place and decisions be taken in conjunction with the consideration of both Houses and the reform of the upper House. What we cannot have is the Prime Minister announcing the creation of a supreme court without any of those processes whatever taking place.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: The right hon. Gentleman will not have to wait many months for the Government's response, because the Joint Committee on House of Lords Reform had various things to say about a supreme court. It is customary for the Government to respond to such a report within two months, which would take us to 29 June.
    Mr. Forth: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman believes that the Prime Minister's response is either appropriate or based on very much thought—I shall leave it for him to decide. However, let me quote what the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews), who is acknowledged as something of an expert on such matters, said on Friday:
    "If you are going to change 1,500 years of constitutional history, you do it carefully, you have a consultation, a white Paper and experts, and then finally you bring it before Parliament, because Parliament decides the way we are governed, not the Prime Minister on the back of an envelope in Downing Street. What we have here is a botch, which looks as though it has been put together in panic. It totally lacks coherence and clarity."
    On Sunday, speaking on "Breakfast with Frost", Lord Falconer himself said:
    "As far as the Supreme Court is concerned, the effect of the announcement on Thursday is that we would have a Supreme Court but the detail of that has to be worked out after proper consultation."
    Meanwhile, the Government's claim that the proposed judicial appointments commission would make judicial appointments impartial was queried by Lord Donaldson, the former Master of the Rolls, who said:
    "You can have an Appointments Commission which is independent of the executive, but nevertheless is tailor-made to produce an entirely different kind of judge who perhaps would be more acceptable to the Home Secretary".
    220
    I wonder whether that is what the part-time Leader of the House meant by what he said in Tribune in 1984—[HON. MEMBERS: "1984?"] I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman remembers what he said, but I am going to remind him. He said:
    "The next Labour Government should appoint only judges who have clear socialist or libertarian leanings."
    Let us now turn to the sad story of the fast-diminishing representation of the people of Scotland and Wales. On Thursday, the Downing Street press briefing read:
    "New arrangements will also be put in place for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business. The Scotland and Wales Offices will henceforth be located within the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, together with the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales."
    On Friday, the Downing street press briefing described the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) as
    "the Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland"
    and the right hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain) as
    "the Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal and Secretary of State for Wales".
    The briefing went on to say, most helpfully, that the Prime Minister's official spokesman could not give
    "a precise breakdown of Alistair Darling's schedule and it would be wrong to do so, but … one of the reasons Alistair Darling was made Secretary of State for Scotland was that he was Scottish."
    Asked whether he was saying that
    "Alistair Darling, Peter Hain and Helen Liddell"
    did not have enough to do, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said:
    "in respect of Wales and Scotland, given the progress of time in relation to devolution … these were no longer full-time jobs, so they were being combined with other roles."
    When asked to whom the civil servants in the Scotland and Wales Offices would answer, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that they would come under a single permanent secretary, Sir Hayden Phillips, but would work for their respective Secretaries of State. Asked whether the permanent secretary would be answerable to Lord Falconer, the Prime Minister's spokesman said that he would.
    After all that, I think that we can all agree with the conclusion of Friday's Downing street press briefing that
    "some things had been a little hazy".
    However, that was not the view of the part-time Leader of the House, who told BBC Radio Wales on Friday:
    "The Wales Office is not being abolished, I stay as Secretary of State for Wales."
    He went on to say, in a rare moment of honesty:
    "I readily admit that in the comings and goings yesterday, this whole issue could have been communicated far more effectively from Downing Street."
    I hope that he will expand on that when he speaks.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: My right hon. Friend has just reminded us that the part-time Secretary of State for Wales has announced that the Wales Office still exists, but on today's Order Paper the Scotland Office is referred to as "the former Scotland Office".
    Mr. Forth:I am at a loss to explain that. I cannot help my hon. Friend, but perhaps the part-time Leader of the House will do so when he speaks.
    Mr. Graham Allen: Before we get too deep into the knockabout, which we are all enjoying, can we be clear about the policy substance? From what the right hon. Gentleman has said so far, I understand that Conservative party policy is that they would be happy with both a supreme court and a judicial appointments commission. Is that the case, or will he confirm that—in the unlikely event of his being in government—he would abolish either or both of those institutions?
    Mr. Forth:I wish that we had some substance to discuss. My whole point is that we do not. The hon. Gentleman asks a reasonable question and our response is that these are very important matters. They are constitutional and judicial matters. They deserve the appropriate treatment. We say that they deserve thought, a Green Paper, a debate, consideration and consultation. Then Parliament, in both Houses, should determine the matter. That is our policy and that is the approach that we would take. If any Labour Members have a problem with that, they should tell us. I hope that the part-time Leader of the House will tell us if he has a problem with that approach when he speaks.
    Richard Burden rose—
    Mr. Forth:Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will help us.
    Richard Burden: The right hon. Gentleman is being uncharacteristically coy. The question is simple. In principle, is he in favour of the institutions that my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) described?
    Mr. Forth: The whole point is that these are not simple issues. They are complex issues relating to our constitution, which has served us so well for many centuries. If Labour Members think—as the Prime Minister obviously does—that these are simple issues to be worked out on the back of an envelope, that is the difference between us.
    Mr. Allen:The shadow Leader of the House said, rightly, that these are ultimately matters for Parliament, and I hope that we would all agree with that. However, he is speaking at the Dispatch Box for the Opposition, so would he be kind enough to put on record the Opposition's policy on a judicial appointments commission and a supreme court? [Interruption.] I am glad that he is getting some advice from the Leader of the Opposition, but I ask him to clarify the Conservative party's policy for the record. If the Conservatives came
    222
    to power, would they abolish a supreme court or a judicial appointments commission, or is this only a lot of hot air with great entertainment value?
    Mr. Forth:Let me take the hon. Gentleman back a little way—
    Mr. Allen: What is your policy?
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    Mr. Forth:Let me take the hon. Gentleman back to the debate that took place on the reform of the House of Lords. We set up a commission, we consulted, we took advice, we published some thoughts, we had debates and we then published our policy. That is the process in which we believe, as opposed to the Prime Minister, who believes in doing none of that. Our policy is to have mature discussions on these important issues, to consult and to debate.
    Mr. Allen:You don't know yet.
    Mr. Forth:I shall get the hon. Gentleman into Hansard by replying to his sedentary remark—that is how kind I am. He is correct: we do not know yet. That is the distinction between the Prime Minister and myself and my right hon. and hon. Friends.[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Far too noisy, Mr. Allen.
    Mr. Forth:On Saturday, Lord Falconer said:
    "Of course I am not their boss …There is still a Scottish Office, the officials work in my department, but politically those offices are led by Peter and Alistair, there is still a very strong voice in the Cabinet for Scotland and Wales".
    However, the hon. Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire)—who is now the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, although we do not know that officially, because we have not had a list of the Government—said:
    "I am working for Alistair Darling as a junior minister in the Scotland Office which is part of the constitutional affairs department … A great deal of the day to day activity will be done by me anyway, Alistair and I have discussed that".
    As the Scotland Office website now reads:
    "This site is currently under redevelopment."
    Dr. Nick Palmer: The right hon. Gentleman has clarified his position on a supreme court—which is that he does not know—but will he now clarify his party's position on Scotland? Will he abolish devolution or will he accept the scaling down that follows?
    Mr. Forth:The hon. Gentleman knows the answer to that perfectly well. My hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, will set our position out when she replies to the debate. We have accepted the settlement following the referendum in Scotland. We have accepted the role of the Scottish Parliament, but we also believe that there should be a Secretary of State for Scotland.

    223
    The presence of my hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland is living proof of that, and I hope that that is enough for the hon. Gentleman.
    Today's debate is about more than constitutional confusion—bad enough as that is.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: Strangely, the shadow Leader of the House has not made enough of the point made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack). In the Order Paper today, Mr. David Crawley is described as
    "Head of Department at the former Scotland Office."
    Despite what the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, says, may we conclude that the Scotland Office is a dead parrot?
    Mr. Forth:Or a dead macaw, perhaps. I defer to the hon. Gentleman in that he has pointed out that what is in today's Order Paper is the only official declaration that we have had, because we have no official list of the Government. Therefore, we are all in the dark about the position of various Departments and Ministers.
    The serious issue is the loss of, or reduction in, representation for the people of Wales and Scotland. It is about the loss of democratic accountability for the acts of this Government in regard to those vital parts of the United Kingdom. What are the roles of the Scottish Secretary, the Welsh Secretary and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs? For example, does a Scottish Member with a concern go to the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) or to the Lord Chancellor, as he is known for the time being? What happens if those two Secretaries of State disagree with each other? What happens if one Secretary of State gives a civil servant a different instruction from the other? Is the Scotland Office part of the Department for Constitutional Affairs as we were told on Thursday, or is it not, as we have been told since?
    Mrs. Gillian Shephard: Would my right hon. Friend care to speculate on what would happen if the part-time Leader of the House should choose to disagree with the part-time Secretary of State for Wales?
    Mr. Forth:Perhaps the bicephalous right hon. Gentleman could tell us that when he makes his own contribution—[Interruption.] Yes, I thought that that might tax some Labour Members. On a serious point, if the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) felt obliged to resign from a job as one Secretary of State, how can others be reasonably expected to do a job as two?
    Kevin Brennan:Can the right hon. Gentleman remind us what arrangements were made in those areas by the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the previous Leader of the Opposition? The shadow Secretary of State for Wales is sitting next to the right hon. Gentleman, so perhaps he can whisper in his ear and tell him what those arrangements were.
    Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because I have in front of me a copy of his early-day motion. It reads:
    "this House believes that the Secretary of State for Wales performs a vital role in the government of the United Kingdom; and further believes that this office should be retained as an individual cabinet post as envisaged in the Government of Wales Act 1998."
    I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I doubt whether Government Front-Bench Members are.
    Last week began with the Government saying no to a referendum on the new European constitution. The Government started this week with a pledge of referendums on regional assemblies. We began last week with the Government running away from a referendum on the destruction of the pound, but we ended it with them promising emergency legislation in another place to allow referendums on the use of fluoride in water.
    My final question concerns the role of the Secretary of State for Health—the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid)—and the West Lothian question. The absurdity of the right hon. Gentleman's appointment is that we have a Member of Parliament who represents a Scottish constituency telling us how to run the NHS in England, when he has no say over health policy in Scotland because the issue is devolved. The Father of the House is, as ever, in his place. Of this appointment, he said:
    "It is an extraordinary piece of casting to put a Scot in charge of the English health service. Dr. Reid has no say whatsoever in health matters pertaining to those who sent him to the Commons."
    That is a view from north of the border, and we respect it, but—lest it be thought that that is the only view on the matter—I shall also quote the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who said:
    "I am not happy that the health ministry, which is almost totally an English ministry, is headed up by a member of parliament representing a Scottish constituency."
    So two highly respected Labour Members—one from north of the border, and one from England—have both made the same point in their very individual ways.
    Mr. Tom Harris: The right hon. Gentleman has made it clear that he opposes a Scottish MP being the Secretary of State for Health. However, he also made it clear that in the next Conservative Government, a Conservative Member with an English seat would be Secretary of State for Scotland. That is a ridiculous position.
    Mr. Forth:Not at all. With the greatest respect to my hon. Friend the Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), my parliamentary neighbour, I say that we will win so many seats in Scotland that she will face severe competition for the post of Secretary of State for Scotland.
    Mr. Allen:Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Forth:No. I must press on, as I am very conscious of the passage of time.
    The Secretary of State for Health will have the task of pushing through the House the Bill establishing foundation hospitals in England—the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill—even though the proposal has been rejected by the

    225
    Labour-run Scottish Assembly. Has the right hon. Gentleman forgotten what the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)—a Scottish MP—said just before the 1992 general election, when he was shadow Health Secretary? He said:
    "Once we have a Scottish Parliament handling health affairs in Scotland, it is not possible for me to continue as Minister of Health, administering health in England."
    Kevin Brennan:Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Forth:No. I invite the hon. Gentleman to re-read his early-day motion before he stands up again.
    The Prime Minister has been guilty of breathless arrogance and supreme incompetence. This is a time when our public services are in crisis and in dire need of real and radical reform, when one in four children leave our primary schools unable to read, write or count properly, when 30,000 children leave secondary school without a single GCSE, when there are still a million people on hospital waiting lists, and when 300,000 people feel obliged every year to pay for their own hospital treatment. Our pensions are in crisis and our roads are congested. The British people spend longer commuting to work than any other people in Europe, and one train in five are late. Gun crime is spiralling out of control—and what does the Prime Minister come up with'? He decided that the country needed a shambolic reshuffle on which no one was consulted and which no one understands. He announced his plans, and then asks us to agree to them. The trouble is, which version does he want us to agree to—the Thursday night version, the Friday morning version, or the version given over the weekend?
    No wonder no one trusts what the Prime Minister says any more, that we do not know what to believe, or that he cannot deliver any more. I want to ask the part-time Leader of the House the following questions—
    Kevin Brennan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Forth: No. This is my peroration—as if the hon. Gentleman did not know. Obviously, I will have to give Labour Members a signal when I am perorating.
    Here are my questions to the part-time Leader of the House. Have the key decisions been taken on the role of the Lord Chancellor, on the creation and role of a supreme court and on a judicial appointments commission, or will there be genuine consultation and debate? Does anyone understand the roles and responsibilities of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, to say nothing about those of the Scotland Office and the Wales Office? What about departmental Ministers and officials? For example, will the right hon. Gentleman say who is the Minister for Constitutional Affairs in the House of Commons?
    "The lesson of previous Parliamentary change is that it has to be carried out with care and sensitivity."
    Those are not my words, but the words of the present Prime Minister, spoken in 1996. How can we possibly have confidence in a Prime Minister who has obviously
    226
    forgotten any lessons that he claimed to have learned, and who now tries to impose this shambles on our Parliament and our country? There needs to be consultation, debate, thought and care over such matters, as we are showing today. If the Government will not do it, we will.
    Mr. Speaker: I call the Leader of the House to move the amendment.
    Hon. Members:The part-time Leader of the House.
    1.15 pm
    The Leader of the House of Commons, Lord Privy Seal and Secretary of State for Wales (Peter Hain): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
    "welcomes the Government's continuing drive to modernise the constitution and public service by creating a new Department for Constitutional Affairs focused on improving the criminal justice system, by consulting on establishing an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, by consulting on establishing a Supreme Court, and by consulting the House of Lords on the appointment by the House of its own Speaker, and putting in place better arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business after the successful bedding-down of devolution; further welcomes the continued accountability of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to the House; further welcomes the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Health who will continue the drive to reform and modernise the National Health Service; and supports the Government in its continued commitment to invest and reform the public services."
    Well, well, well. That was an exercise in Tory self-inflated cant, bombast and hypocrisy by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), cheered on by the grinning idiocy behind him. Even Comical Ali would have been proud of that performance. The right hon. Gentleman lashed out wildly, missing his target every time—except when he congratulated me on my wedding; then he was spot on, and I am very grateful for what he said.
    The speech of the right hon. Gentleman was interesting for one reason. It was all process, and no substance—(Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Opposition Members are far too noisy. They must allow the Leader of the House to speak.
    Hon. Members:The part-time Leader of the House.
    Peter Hain: Why was the speech of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst all process and no substance? It was because he is frightened of substance and of the fact that the reform and modernisation of our democratic system are popular and welcomed by people right across the country.
    Mr. Julian Brazier: I thank the Leader of the House for giving way. [HoN. MEMBERS: "The part-time Leader of the House."] The right hon. Gentleman just said that the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was all process and no substance. What does he think that a constitution is about if it is not about process?
    Peter Hain: That really was a devastating question. Every time this Labour Government propose a sensible constitutional reform, widely supported by public opinion in the country at large, the Tories oppose it and claim that the end of the world is nigh. The Opposition go on about procedure and process, and I shall deal with those claims later, but basically they are against change. The Opposition are stuck in the past, on the side of privilege and patronage. They are the same old Tories, the same old reactionaries: whatever the reform, they are against it.
    Kevin Brennan: Did my right hon. Friend notice that the shadow Leader of the House refused to answer the question that I asked him about the policy of the previous Leader of the Opposition? In March 2001, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague) said the following about the post of Secretary of State for Wales:
    "Instead, the position, which is currently held by Paul Murphy, could be merged with roles such as Leader of the House in an effort to create 'smaller government'''.
    Is my right hon. Friend surprised that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) was not willing to answer my question?
    Peter Hain:I am going to remind the right hon. Gentleman about that in a moment.
    Whatever the reform, the Opposition are against it.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Will the Secretary of State and the Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Part-time."]—tell us how long the office of Lord Chancellor will exist?
    Peter Hain:The original target was that the office would continue for about 18 months, but it is a matter for consultation—[Interruption.] The proposals are all about consultation. There will be consultation about the situation following the replacement of the Lord Chancellor, about the independent judicial commission, and about establishing the supreme court.
    The shadow Leader of the House made much of that issue; he said that there had been no consultation. Let us consider the major reorganisations conducted by the Conservative Governments of the 1980s and 1990s. The Department of Trade and the Department of Industry merged to form the Department of Trade and Industry—no consultation; the Department of Health and Social Security split into the Department of Social Security and the Department of Health—no consultation; the Department of Energy was abolished—no consultation; the Department of Employment was abolished—no consultation; and the post of Deputy Prime Minister was created and the post of President of the Board of Trade was reincarnated—no consultation.
    The Conservatives have been out of office for so long that they have forgotten how government works, so I shall remind them that in a reshuffle, naturally, decisions are announced on the day, but consultation on the detail follows—
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Peter Hain:I shall give way in a moment, especially to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). I am always keen to give way to him—he is not a bad performer.
    228
    Consultation will follow, in great detail, with everybody concerned.
    Mr. John Bercow: I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way. His is truly a chronic speech from a discredited Minister in a devalued Labour Government. Given that Opposition Members at least recognise that the constitution of this country is not a piece of putty to be moulded according to the passing whim of a Government but something that has evolved over generations and should be treated with respect, why does not the right hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government's fatal conceit is to imagine that their own internal and short-term machinations are either the same as, or more important than, the long-term interests of the people of the United Kingdom?
    Peter Hain:The long-term interests of the people of the United Kingdom lie in having a reformed, modernised, efficient structure, widely supported across all shades of opinion.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Peter Hain: I will give way in a moment, but I want to make some progress before I take any more interventions—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We must have more order in the House. Hon. Members are being unfair to the Leader of the House.
    Peter Hain: I shall be happy to take interventions if I can make a bit of progress first.
    Whatever the reform, the Tories are against it. They wanted to keep hereditary peers. They were against the Human Rights Act 1998, and against a London Mayor and Assembly. Yesterday, they were against regional government for English regions that vote for it. They were against devolution for Scotland and Wales—"It would mean the break-up of Britain", they screamed.
    It was the Tories who nearly broke up Britain, with their arrogant centralism and their disastrous policies. Labour, through devolution, has saved the United Kingdom and neutered the separatists. Who would now want to abolish the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales and go back to Tory direct rule? I challenge the Conservatives to campaign for a referendum on ditching devolution.
    Mr. Allen: My right hon. Friend is being excessively generous in saying that there should be 18 months or so before the post of Lord Chancellor is abolished. Is the explanation for the delay in enacting that policy that my right hon. Friend discovered from the remarks of the shadow Leader of the House that the Conservative party does not have a policy on the supreme court, the lord chancellorship or the judicial appointments commission? In fact, is my right hon. Friend giving the Conservatives long enough to devise a policy?
    Peter Hain: That is a good question.

    229
    On the time period, legislation is needed and consultation has to take place beforehand, and that will occur.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way. Why was it announced, last Thursday evening, that the Scotland Office and the Wales Office were to be abolished, yet on Friday morning it was announced that they would be retained? Did some key consultation take place between Thursday night and Friday morning? Will he answer those simple questions?
    Peter Hain: I have before me the press statement issued by No. 10 on Thursday and I should be happy to read it all to the hon. Lady. It makes it clear that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales would remain and that the Scotland and Wales Offices would remain.
    Mr. Iain Duncan Smith: I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way. He has just said that there will be a Lord Chancellor for an 18-month transition period, yet on Thursday the Prime Minister's official spokesman said that Lord Falconer would not fulfil the role or function of Lord Chancellor. Who exactly did he intend should fulfil that function?
    Peter Hain: I am honoured that the Leader of the Opposition chose to intervene on a Minister who is well down the food chain and I welcome him to the debate. I shall quote from the statement issued by No. 10 on Thursday:
    "For the period of transition, Lord Falconer will exercise all the functions of Lord Chancellor as necessary."
    That is absolutely clear.
    Mr. Kevin Hughes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. Does he agree that although the speech of the shadow Leader of the House was vacuous nonsense, it was very witty? At least it has united the Tories on one issue: they have realised their true potential as clowns. Of course, we already knew that.
    Peter Hain: I could not agree more.
    Several hon. Members rose
    Peter Hain: I want to make some more progress and then I shall happily take other interventions.
    The truth is that devolution has been a success. One of its successes is that decisions in Scotland and Wales are being made closer to the people of Scotland and Wales, through the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. As a result, there are fewer decisions and fewer duties for the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. That is self-evident. It is thus a perfectly reasonable step to combine their duties with other Cabinet posts, as we have done.
    230
    The position is clear, as it has been since the reshuffle—as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and others would know if they had bothered to find out the facts. As the Secretary of State for Wales, I am accountable to the House, as before, for Welsh business, and I represent Wales in Cabinet. My duties remain the same. My oversight of all primary legislation affecting Wales remains the same. The Wales Office remains open for business as usual and its staff serve me and my deputy, the hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), as before.
    My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is accountable to the House for Scottish business, as before, and conducts it in Cabinet. As before, we each have an Under-Secretary in respect of Welsh and Scottish business, also accountable to the House. The only difference is that we combine those duties with our other Cabinet posts and the Scotland Office and Wales Office staff will come under the umbrella of the new Department for Constitutional Affairs, giving them better career certainty and opportunity.
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Over the past couple of years, he has said many times that the success of the devolution settlement will rely entirely on the partnership of him and his Under-Secretary in introducing legislation from the Welsh Assembly. Thai will now be extremely difficult. At what point did the Prime Minister or his office realise that to abolish the functions of the Secretary of State for Wales would be breaking the law, according to the provisions of the Government of Wales Act 1998?
    Peter Hain: Obviously, the hon. Gentleman is completely confused about the situation. I have just carefully and patiently explained that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I continue to discharge our functions in exactly the same way as we did before Thursday. Furthermore, I remind the House that the hon. Gentleman and his party want to abolish both the post of Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office because they believe in independence for Wales, and that that would mean that a Secretary of State no longer had a function.
    Mr. Tom Harris: My right hon. Friend will be aware that, if the Conservatives ever form a Government, they intend to introduce a rule that would prevent any Member representing a Scottish constituency from voting in this place on matters that apply specifically to England and Wales. That is a massive constitutional change on which they held no consultation, yet for 50 years the Conservatives not only tolerated but welcomed a situation whereby Northern Ireland had its own Parliament while continuing to send MPs to this place. Was not the reason for their pragmatism then the fact that Ulster Unionists accepted the Conservative Whip?
    Peter Hain: My hon. Friend is absolutely right.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: If what the part-time Leader of the House says about the positions of the Welsh Secretary and the Scottish Secretary is true and

    231
    we should all have known that their roles would be merged, why did the Government say, in March 2003—just three months ago—in their response to the second report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, which suggested such a merger, that the Prime Minister
    "has no plans to merge either the roles of the territorial Secretaries of State or their departments. Each territorial department is a discrete centre of excellence in the relevant settlement"?
    Peter Hain: The roles have not merged. I am the Secretary of State for Wales, and there is a distinct Secretary of State for Scotland. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The House must come to order and allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak.
    Peter Hain: The hon. Gentleman asked me a perfectly straightforward question; I am giving a perfectly straightforward answer. [Interruption.] Well, he may not understand that there is a separate Secretary of State for Scotland and a separate Secretary of State for Wales and that the Scotland Office and the Wales Office remain, with exactly the same staff, doing exactly the same duties. He obviously has no comprehension at all of the facts that stare him in the face.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: On Thursday evening, a major announcement was made in my constituency that could have jeopardised several thousand jobs. I was privileged to be able to take that information to the Secretary of State for Wales that evening and to have it acted upon. There was no confusion, but there is confusion in the line of the motion that says
    "further notes that the NHS in England and Wales is now to be run by a Secretary of State"
    and so on. Does he suspect, as I do, that there is confusion about devolution among the Opposition?
    Peter Hain: That was well put. The National Assembly for Wales runs the NHS in Wales—it has been devolved.
    Mr. Forth:Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why item 11, Scottish Affairs, on today's Order Paper quite clearly says:
    "Witnesses: Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP, Secretary of State for Scotland"
    and goes on to refer to
    "Mr David Crawley, Head of Department at the former Scotland Office."?
    Can the right hon. Gentleman explain who is responsible for that? [Interruption.] I will even give him a moment to read the prompting note that his officials have had to pass to him. Perhaps he can tell us whether the same official who gave that information to the custodians of the Order Paper is now giving him his further instructions.
    Mr. Keith Simpson: It reads, "You're on your own."
    Peter Hain: No, I have got some good company on this one. Of course, the reference is to a former House
    232
    official, and the wording of the Order Paper was drawn up by the House authorities, rather than by the Government.
    The Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Executive have both welcomed the new arrangements. At the weekend, the First Minister of Wales said in his inimitable way:
    "I don't think anybody who hasn't been on Planet Zog or exploring the Antarctic for the past three or four years thought that the jobs of Secretary of State for Wales and Scotland, as they were before 1999, were going to go on exactly the same as before into the great blue yonder once you had a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly."
    I am a generous man, so let me make one retraction. A moment ago, I said that the Conservative party had opposed all our constitutional reforms since 1997. That was deeply unfair, and I plead forgiveness and your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker. [HON. MEMBERS: "Wait for it."] Conservative Members better wait for it, because they will not like it. In fact, there is one reform that they have positively supported and, indeed, actively advocated—yes, merging the roles of Welsh Secretary and Scottish Secretary with other Departments. No one would have ever guessed from the peroration of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst—from all that self-inflated, puffed up indignation and apoplectic doom-mongering about the end of civilisation—that that merger was in their manifesto.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Peter Hain: Hon. Members should listen to this for a moment, and I shall then take some more interventions.
    I quote:
    "Scotland must be represented in Westminster and in the Cabinet. We will keep the position of Secretary of State for Scotland with the holder of that position also having an additional UK role within the Cabinet."
    On Wales, the then leader of the Conservative party, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), could not have been more explicit:
    "To take account of the changed role of the Secretary of State for Wales, I shall, as Prime Minister, give the incoming Secretary of State for Wales an additional United Kingdom role within the Cabinet"
    If that was not clear enough, the following day, BBC News online—no doubt, briefed by the Tory leader's office—named the office of Leader of the House of Commons as the most likely post to be merged with that of the Welsh Secretary or the Scottish Secretary. So here I am, the embodiment of perhaps the only Tory policy at the last election that made sense. What have the Tories done? They have recanted, which is total hypocrisy and total opportunism.
    Mr. Salmond:It would have been better to say that all this was a blunder. The idea that this embarrassing chaos was planned is absolutely mind-boggling, but let us get back to what is on the Order Paper. The Leader of the House made the serious suggestion that House officials had been inaccurate in describing Mr. David Crawley as
    "Head of Department at the former Scotland Office."

    233
    Let the right hon. Gentleman be specific: is he saying that House officials have made a mistake; or is it a result of the Government's embarrassment and blundering?
    Peter Hain: I made no reference to a mistake; I said that the wording was drawn up by the House authorities. I made that absolutely clear.
    Mr. Salmond:Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Hon. Members:Give way.
    Peter Hain:I will not give way again to someone who wants to destroy the United Kingdom and separate Scotland from the rest of the United Kingdom. The hon. Gentleman can wait a moment.
    Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. It is very obvious that the Leader of the House is not prepared to give way at the moment.
    Dr. Palmer:Does not my right hon. Friend feel that he is being a bit unfair to the shadow Leader of the House because he is trying to pin on him the policy of the previous short-term leader of the Conservative party, and the present short-term leader of the Conservative party has made it clear that he does not have a policy?
    Peter Hain:Indeed. We searched in vain for a policy from the leader of the Conservative party, even on something to which he said he has been committed in the past: a supreme court.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Sir Patrick Cormack:Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Peter Hain:Not for the moment. I have taken a lot of interventions, and I am happy to take more.
    The Liberal Democrats' leader in Wales was on the radio yesterday, huffing and puffing. Perhaps he has forgotten his party's manifesto at the last election and, a few months ago, its evidence to the Richard commission advocating the abolition of the Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office.
    No one will take seriously the other cause taken up by leader of the Conservative party—the opposition to any change in the role of the Lord Chancellor. Again, what we are doing is a sensible, measured act of constitutional modernisation.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
    Peter Hain:In a moment. Let me finish this point.
    My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on Thursday evening a full and open process of consultation on proposals leading to three reforms. First, we will consult on establishing an independent
    234
    judicial appointments commission to recommend candidates for appointment as judges. Scotland already has an independent Judicial Appointments Board, and one is being set up for Northern Ireland. That reform has strong support among the judiciary. It will boost judicial independence and the transparency of the appointments process, and it is fully in keeping with the trend across all public appointments.
    Mr. Barry Gardiner: The Opposition have made much of the part-time nature, as they call it, of the posts. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the primary responsibility of any Member of Parliament—whether or not he or she is a Minister—is to represent his or her constituents, and that to diminish any ministerial post by describing it as "part-time" is to ignore an MP's primary responsibility? The people of this country believe that the real problem is that many Opposition Members have part-time jobs, instead of representing their constituents?
    Peter Hain:I could not agree more. On the part-time issue, I made it clear on accepting the Prime Minister's invitation that I did not want to carry on as President of the Council. As I have been informed by predecessors and others, those duties, undertaken in recent times by the Leader of the House, could account for up to a third and sometimes more of the week's diary time. That responsibility has been transferred to the Leader of the House of Lords.
    Mr. Grieve:The purpose of getting rid of the Lord Chancellor is to lead to a separation of powers, which is deemed to be desirable in the interests of judicial independence. Can the right hon. Gentleman therefore explain how it is in the interests of judicial independence that for a period of at least 18 months, if not longer, the discharge of the function of the appointment of judges has been transferred to a Minister who does not want to take on the responsibilities of being Lord Chancellor, with the independence that that implied, and has been transferred to the Department for Constitutional Affairs and to a Minister who shows every sign of simply wanting to be the lackey of the Prime Minister in that respect?
    Peter Hain:That really was hard work as a question—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I will happily give the hon. Gentleman the answer. The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has made it clear that he will not sit as a Law Lord—
    Mr. Grieve:But he appoints the judges.
    Peter Hain:Obviously, because that is the existing system, and it takes a bit of time to reform. That process of reform, which the Conservatives do not like—they do not like modernisation or reform, and they want things to stay the same for ever and a year—will be in a context of consultation.
    Sir Patrick Cormack:Does the right hon. Gentleman not accept that the way in which the Government are tackling this matter is like throwing tacks on a cricket pitch? He knows all about that. When he answers, will he also tell us how he will apportion his time between his two jobs?
    Peter Hain:As it happens, for the record, although I am not sure that it is relevant, I never threw any tacks on any cricket pitches.
    Mr. David Heath rose—
    Peter Hain:Let me take a serious question.
    Mr. Heath:A long time ago, the right hon. Gentleman talked about informed opinion outside this House and a coalition of interests against reactionary forces that were frustrating reforms. Informed opinion outside the House was very interested in the concept of a ministry of justice deriving some of its powers from the Home Department. Reactionary forces within the Home Department threw their toys out of the pram and said that that would not happen. Will there be a proper debate about that and proposals to take powers from the Home Department and give them to the Department for Constitutional Affairs so that it becomes a genuine ministry of justice?
    Peter Hain:Again, I think it best that the hon. Gentleman reads the press release issued by No. 10. If he wants to initiate a debate along those interesting lines using Liberal Democrat time in the House, that will no doubt prove fruitful.
    Mr. Edward Garnier: The right hon. Gentleman talks a great deal about consultation, but at the same time he talks about the Government's plans as though they were set in concrete. What will they do if the results of the consultation are inimical to their current apparent policy?
    Peter Hain:As the Leader of the House of Lords made clear yesterday, if the other place decides that it does not want to elect its own Speaker, and would prefer the Government to appoint its Speaker, which is very unlikely, no doubt the Government will have to listen.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Peter Hain: I want to make some progress in explaining some of the detail, as some Members clearly have not followed it.
    Mr. Salmond rose
    Peter Hain:I will then happily take more interventions, including one from the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond).
    Secondly, we will consult on the establishment of a supreme court to replace the existing arrangement of the Law Lords, who operate as a Committee of the House of Lords. That will take the Lord Chancellor, a politician and Minister as well as a judge, out of the final court of appeal and establish it on a fully independent
    236
    basis. Indeed, the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst, although he refused to confirm it, agrees with us. He said that
    "I must accept that we would need a supreme court of the kind that the United States has. I believe that the Supreme Court has served the US extraordinarily well … we would have nothing to fear from that."—[Official Report, 1 February 1999; Vol. 324, c. 653.]
    Mr. Forth:Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that contribution was in the context of the then debate on reform of the House of Lords, which, courtesy of the Government, seems to have ground completely to a halt. Will he put it in context?
    Peter Hain:We have already concluded the first stage of reform of the House of Lords, and we await the second stage. What does the right hon. Gentleman believe? Does he believe in a supreme court or not? What does the Leader of the Opposition believe? What is the Opposition's policy? They do not have a policy any more.
    Geraldine Smith: This debate, although entertaining, shows how out of touch the Opposition are with the British people. Not many people in my constituency will lose sleep over the Government reshuffle. What they are concerned about is the health service, education and antisocial behaviour. Why will the Conservatives not discuss those subjects?
    Peter Hain:Because they are frightened of doing so.
    The supreme court idea, too, is a sensible measure of constitutional modernisation, supported by, among others, none other than the senior Law Lord, Lord Bingham. In evidence to the Home Affairs Committee on 17 March 1998, he said:
    "I am wondering whether it—
    the judicial appointments system—
    "could not all be brought more into the open … by having a different system for example a judicial appointments commission."
    He has also said:
    "I think there is a very strong case for having a supreme court that is in the same position constitutionally"—[Interruption.]
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The Chamber is getting far too noisy.
    Peter Hain:As I was saying, Lord Bingham has also said:
    "I think there is a very strong case for having a supreme court that is in the same position constitutionally as the supreme courts of every other country in the world, whether it be in the US, Canada, Australia, India or France".
    Furthermore, he has said, "To modern eyes"—[Interruption.] I have already referred to the grinning idiocy on the Opposition Back Benches, and we are seeing it being displayed again. His comments were:

    237
    "To modern eyes, it was always anomalous that a legislative body should exercise judicial power, save in very restricted circumstances … The law lords are judges not legislators and do not belong in a House to whose business they can make no more than a slight contribution … My own personal preference would be for … a supreme court severed from the legislature".
    That was the leading Law Lord, Lord Bingham, supporting the Government's policy.
    Mr. Salmond rose—
    Mr. Adrian Flook rose—
    Peter Hain:I shall give way first to the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan.
    Mr. Salmond:Will the right hon. Gentleman give us a straight answer? Is the description on today's Order Paper of the former Scotland Office accurate or not? I only want to know the tense in which to describe the Department.
    Peter Hain:I have already answered that question. The Scotland Office exists. It exists as it did before Thursday, as it does now, and as it will in the future, as does the Wales Office.
    Mrs. Shephard:The right hon. Gentleman will have heard the hon. Member for Morecambe and Lunesdale (Geraldine Smith) say that her constituents are not at all bothered about the matters being debated in the House today. I must say to her, that my constituents—and almost everyone in the country—are deeply bothered that the one thing over which a Government have complete control, a reshuffle, this Government have utterly botched. If they cannot run their own reshuffle, they certainly cannot run the country.
    Peter Hain:Again, the Opposition concentrate on process and not on substance. They are afraid of modernisation, and they do not like the idea of a supreme court—or perhaps they do. They should make up their minds. Do they like the fact that, in future, judges will be appointed by an independent commission rather than by a member of the British Cabinet? Surely such modernisation is to be welcomed by everybody.
    Mr. Allen: This may not be the occasion on which to consider the serious constitutional moves that were made last week, but there must come a point at which all Members of the House will look back on the announcements that were made last week, one of which—the creation of a supreme court—will remain outstanding. That is a monumental move forward by the Government on which I congratulate the Prime Minister. Should not all Members of the House consider that proposal with great seriousness, because the legislature will need to have a role of some description? Is it not appropriate that all Members should consider that? Is it not appropriate that even Her Majesty's loyal Opposition should get their act together—even if they
    238
    are allowed 18 months to do so—to decide their policy on a supreme court, which may involve ratification or interview?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That was far too long an intervention.
    Peter Hain:I very much welcome the opportunity that the process of consultation will give my hon. Friend, with his expert interest in this matter, to make his views known.
    The third reform we propose is to invite the House of Lords to select its own presiding officer, rather than having a Minister imposed upon it by the Government of the day, as happens now. In any rational world, that is something the Opposition should welcome with open arms. Do they agree with that or do they not? In any rational world, that is something that everyone should welcome. Indeed, many in the House of Lords welcome it. Why is it suddenly such a terrible idea? The answer is: because we are proposing it. Tories always react to change and reform like scalded cats.
    We have pledged to consult on all the reforms. My right hon. Friend Lord Williams, the Leader of the Lords, has begun consulting Members of the House of Lords on a new independent presiding officer for that House, and my right hon. Friend Lord Falconer will publish consultation papers before the summer on a judicial appointments commission and the supreme court.
    Once these reforms are in place, we will abolish the post of Lord Chancellor, but not before—as, again, was made clear in the statement issued by Downing street last Thursday that I have already quoted. I will quote it again for the Opposition's benefit. It stated explicitly:
    "For the period of transition, Lord Falconer will exercise all the functions of Lord Chancellor as necessary."
    The purpose of the reforms is to make properly independent all parts of our judicial process and put the relationship between Executive, legislature and judiciary on to a modern footing. The former Lord Chancellor's Department, now the Department for Constitutional Affairs, has nearly 12,000 civil servants. With the prospect of a unified courts administration, and with the essential task of administering the criminal and civil court system, legal aid and a range of tribunals now and a unified tribunals service in the future, the Department must in future focus on those essential tasks, with the Secretary of State based in the Department that he is running and not always in the House of Lords. That is sensible modernisation and radical reform, except to the demented hysterics in the Conservative party.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Peter Hain:I have veritable choice. I give way to the hon. Member for North Tayside (Pete Wishart).
    Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the part-time Leader of the House for giving way once again. If everything is such sweetness and light is so clear, why on earth did Downing street refer to the new arrangements as being a bit "hazy"?
    Peter Hain:I have dealt with all that.
    Mr. Paul Goodman: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, as Lord Falconer is now the Lord Chancellor, he will receive the full Lord Chancellor's pension of £2.5 million when he leaves the post?
    Peter Hain:I understand that Lord Falconer is not going to do that.
    Mr. Llwyd:I believe that these reforms are a good thing, but the way in which they came to light last week was not a good thing. There should have been proper consultation beforehand. I for one know that many judges will agree with what the right hon. Gentleman is saying. However, does not declaring that the office will go in 18 months skew the whole consultation process?
    Peter Hain: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I would have expected nothing less from him. He, like me, wants radical reform of the structure of government. He is not stuck in the past, unlike the Conservative Opposition. The hon. Gentleman agrees with the substance, and in respect of the process, the difference between us is perhaps that we are in government. When one is in government, one reshuffles Ministers, as the Prime Minister does from time to time out of choice or necessity, and one then consults on the implementation of the subsequent detail—which, incidentally, the Conservatives did not do in respect of any of the departmental reorganisations that they undertook.
    Huw Irranca-Davies:There is clearly ample confusion among the Opposition about these changes, so may I make a pertinent suggestion? What is termed in the jargon "an idiot's guide" should be published to ensure Conservative Members' constituents are not disadvantaged.
    Peter Hain:That is a valuable suggestion.
    Mr. Flook:Given that we are discussing the constitutional implications of the Prime Minister's decisions last week, to what extent is the right hon. Gentleman trying to tell us that they are no more than just a tidying-up exercise?
    Peter Hain:I never described reform of the European constitution as just a tidying-up exercise. [HoN. MEMBERS: "You did."] I never said that it was just a tidying-up exercise; I said that it was a tidying-up exercise and a process of reform and modernisation. Given that more than three quarters of the clauses in the new constitutional treaty come from the existing four treaties, how else would one describe the reform other than to say that those clauses are tidied up into the new constitutional treaty?
    Mr. Chris Bryant: Is not the truth of the matter that, although most ordinary members of the public are far more interested in issues to do with crime, health and education than in whether we have a supreme court, they will look to the House for a serious debate on how we separate politics from the judiciary in this country and will be a bit depressed by the pantomime that we have seen from Widow Twanky and his colleagues on the Opposition Benches?
    Peter Hain:Indeed. On the point about crime, my hon. Friend's constituents, like mine, will be more
    240
    interested in crime and the problems of crime—[Interruption.] That remark came from a supporter of a Government who doubled crime during their period in office. This process of reform and modernisation will help to tackle the problems of crime and the operation of our criminal justice system, because it will make it more modern and transparent and separate the judiciary from the Cabinet.
    Gregory Barker rose—
    Peter Hain:I have been very generous in taking interventions, and I have more than used up my time.
    The reforms are part of a continuing process of change to ensure the modernisation of our criminal justice system, and should be seen alongside the new criminal justice laws, the reform of the Crown Prosecution Service and the changes to the Home Office that will see its functions on the constitution progressively reallocated to the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so that it, too, can focus on its core work, fighting crime and changing our asylum and immigration system. All this is common-sense constitutional modernisation, which is why the Tories oppose it.
    We look forward to the next election and to the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst campaigning on that great issue of the 21st century—to bring back the Lord Chancellor, complete with wig, breeches, trainbearer, wallpaper and outdated role as politician, judge and Government-appointed Speaker of the House of Lords all rolled into one.
    Mr. Richard Bacon: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have listened to this appalling speech for quite a long time, and 1 would be grateful if you could address the serious question raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) about what appears on the Order Paper. I understand that the contents of the Order Paper are the responsibility of the Government and not the occupant of the Chair. I would therefore be grateful for guidance as to how Members of the House can establish whether the words "former Scotland Office" on the Order Paper are accurate.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The relevant part of the Order Paper to which the hon. Gentleman refers is produced and prepared by Departments of the House. It is not the responsibility of the occupant of the Chair.
    Mr. Salmond:Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The Leader of the House suggested that the passage on the Order Paper is inaccurate. If it emerged that the description and information on the Order Paper came from Government Departments, would we be told and would it be regarded as a serious matter?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: I have no knowledge of that whatsoever. It is not my nature to anticipate what might happen in days to come.
    Mr. Forth:Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Can you confirm that it would be in

    241
    order for hon. Members to table parliamentary questions to get to the bottom of the matter? A serious matter of trust is developing between the Government and the House authorities, and I know which side most of us will be on.
    Madam Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is a very experienced Member of the House and will know that it is entirely up to hon. Members to go to the Table Office and table a question, where they will be advised accordingly.
    Peter Hain:Those exchanges were instructive. What are Conservative Members concerned about? They are not concerned about the big picture of radical reform and the modernisation of our antiquated constitutional structure. I pledge to the House that we, the Labour Government, will battle for better public services, including a better courts and criminal justice system, which the people of this country want and which will be advanced hugely by the radical reforms announced by the Prime Minister last week.
    Mr. Roger Gale: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Some of us take a particular interest in the procedures of the House. Would you be kind enough to ask Mr. Speaker to ensure that a full list of ministerial responsibilities is published prior to the delayed sitting of the Committee of Selection on Thursday?
    Madam Deputy Speaker: Mr. Speaker will have heard the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I shall ensure that the matter is brought to his attention and therefore I have no doubt that a list will be available.
    Peter Hain:Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. If it will assist the House, I shall arrange for a copy of the list of Ministers to be placed in the Library at the end of the debate.
    2.3 pm
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I welcome the new Leader of the House and congratulate him on both his personal and political change of circumstances over the weekend. He will recall with great affection, as do I, the time when we were young Liberals together and he was truly radical. I regret that he has become more reactionary in his older age.
    I enjoyed the excellent speech by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—I am sure that the whole House did—which was clearly a leadership bid. I noted a reference to the Lord Privy Seal. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is also confusion about that because no one is sure now who the Lord Privy Seal is. I think that I am right that he is not a Lord, a privy or a seal, but one of those categories might change.
    In business questions last Thursday, I anticipated the then Leader of the House's change of status to Secretary of State for Health. It was one of my nightmare scenarios but it came true in a matter of hours. I asked the then Leader of the House:
    242
    "is it not extraordinary that the Prime Minister can dramatically change the geography—the structural architecture, if you like—of Whitehall without any reference to the House at all? We find major Departments of state changing their responsibilities with major implications for the way in which we can hold such Departments to account."—[Official Report, 12 June 2003; Vol. 406, c. 834.]
    That foreshadows the critical issue for the House—not the longer-term changes, some of which we welcome, but the way in which the changes have come about.
    If there is one clear lesson from the past five days, it is that the cavalier constitutional carve-up that has taken place is demonstrable evidence that the Prime Minister is frankly not interested in the implications of constitutional change. That goes right back to 1997, because I remember when my party and the Labour party were in opposition and we reached agreement on major constitutional changes, which saw fruition in the so-called Cook-Maclennan agreement. The Prime Minister elect—the Leader of the Opposition as he then was—was frankly not interested in such changes and he must regret losing the previous but one Leader of the House from his right hand because the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) is extremely interested in such matters and has a long track record of interest in constitutional reform.
    The agreement in 1997 touched on these issues, so I reject absolutely the idea that they are suddenly new to the House. The issue of the supreme court goes back more than 100 years and enjoys support among all parties, but that is not the subject of the debate. Labour Members who try to say that it is relevant have not read the Order Paper.
    There are important issues to consider. First, as was implicit in the Cook-Maclennan agreement, we must protect the judiciary from real or perceived political interference. Secondly, my colleagues and I have believed for a long time that we must separate the ceremonial role of the Lord Chancellor from his real political role. Thirdly, we must ensure that the House of Lords is given more democratic legitimacy so that it can complement this House's scrutiny role. Finally, we must follow through the devolution agenda to reduce interference from Whitehall. It is clearly absurd to pretend that everything is precisely the same as before. We have heard that all parties, including the Conservative party, have accepted the need for review, but that is not the issue.
    It is true that the matter has not caused great concern in the public bar of the Sailors Arms in my constituency. I am sure that the public are not greatly worried about the fate of an elderly gentleman robed in a red dressing gown and wearing silk stockings and a miniature duvet on his head while sitting on an overgrown cushion, but that is not the issue. If the public are worried about that, they are clearly nostalgic about Gilbert and Sullivan or the Whitehall farce. Indeed, now that Lord Rix is in the other place, perhaps he can take to the stage again in the role of presiding officer having left the other stage.
    The most welcome feature of the discussions—I hope that we will have discussions rather than diktats from No. 10—that can be dimly discerned through the past few days' fog of confusion is the fact that a proper separation of powers among the Executive, the judiciary and legislature will be implemented at last. Goodness knows that the process will need careful handling after

    243
    100 years of confusion if we are to prevent future confusion. I think that all hon. Members accept that point and I am sorry that the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is not in the Chamber because he has given the matter much thought. Even he would accept that the House and the general public have not yet had the opportunity to think through the consequences.
    Getting rid of the Lord Chancellor's role after 1,400-plus years will clearly be complex and difficult. We will have to unravel a pervasive presence throughout statute—I am informed that there are some 500 references to the Lord Chancellor in statute—and the process will require primary legislation. Unless the entire 2003–04 legislative programme is devoted to the Lord Chancellor's abolition Bill, we will be in big trouble. It is only right for the House to be invited to participate in discussions.
    Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman seems to agree with the basic principle advanced by the Prime Minister in creating the Department for Constitutional Affairs. He also agrees that there should be a process of consultation in this House and the other place. How could he possibly vote for the Conservative motion given that it objects to those actions?
    Mr. Tyler:That is simply untrue. If the hon. Gentleman reads the motion carefully, which I have—I always approach Conservative motions with care—he will notice that it stresses the need to consult on how we proceed. I agree with that. He should think carefully about the problems that we will incur if the process is pushed through with the excess energy and urgency that was apparent last week. That caused confusion on both sides of the House. including among Ministers.
    Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Tyler:In a moment.
    Before I address how we should deal with consultation, I want to emphasise the huge number of ancillary issues that are involved. The hon. Gentleman will know that the Lord Chancellor is patron of a large number of Church of England livings. That has to be unscrambled, as does his role as "Keeper of the Queen's Conscience". It may be that that is not a difficult or time-consuming role to fulfil for the present incumbent, but who knows what the future holds? It may become an onerous responsibility. All that has to be undone. A great number of jobs will have to be unravelled through primary legislation.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice:I have read the motion and am unclear about what the hon. Gentleman is suggesting. Is he proposing that we follow the Canadian example, by which central Government cannot be reconfigured without legislation?
    Mr. Tyler: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is wrong. As things stand, primary legislation will be required to undo the role of the Lord Chancellor. If he examines the detail of the role carried out by the Lord Chancellor after so many years of our constitutional development, he will find that to be true. That is a fact of life.
    Sir Patrick Cormack:Is not this a prime case of needing first, a White Paper, and secondly, a draft Bill
    244
    for pre-legislative scrutiny on which we can take evidence? Surely one solution is to retain the Lord Chancellor with his non-political, yet still important, ceremonial roles and to distribute the others. There are many ways of responding to the problems raised.
    Mr. Tyler: To my amazement, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I suspect that he has looked over my shoulder at my script. I want to make precisely that point, which will worry him because we are not usually on the same side on matters of radical constitutional reform.
    If the intended objective of last week's flawed rearrangement of the deck chairs was truly a radical realignment, many hon. Members on both sides of the House would accept it as necessary to meet 21st century needs. However, it was clearly bungled in both its implementation and the complete lack of appreciation of the possible consequences and of the need for consultation and explanation. A much more successful outcome, with which many of us would be hard put to disagree, could have been achieved by following at least one of the options that my colleagues and I, and it would seem others, propose.
    We could retain the ceremonial role of the Lord Chancellor and his role as the presiding officer in our second Chamber, which is not an onerous responsibility as Members of the House of Lords constantly remind us, but make it clear that he or she would have to be elected by the membership. That is one option. It would involve removing all political functions, leaving only ceremonial functions—for example, in relation to the Crown.
    Clearly, we would have to create a separate and independent judicial appointments commission. That is probably a commonly accepted policy. It would demonstrate once and for all that we are truly and obviously preserving the independence of the judiciary, which is not clear under the present dispensation. We should appoint a new Secretary of State, accountable to the House and, through us, to our electorate, for such matters as those to which the Leader of the House referred. It is extraordinary that the Home Office. in the person of the Secretary of State, was able to block the most important reform of all, which would have brought together the administration of criminal and civil justice in one new Department. That is quite absurd. The Leader of the House implied that the new Department will bring those functions together, but that is not true. It is yet another confusion. The Home Secretary managed to block that and it is outrageous that No. 10 caved in to such pressure.
    We should take account of devolution and find new machinery to ensure that the devolved Assemblies are properly linked to this place. Those responsibilities that are reserved to Parliament should be properly accountable to this place either through a new Secretary of State for the devolved Assemblies or a Cabinet Office Minister with a seat in the Cabinet. Once the Northern Ireland Assembly is up and running that, too, will require representation in the House on that basis. In due course, if the legislation proposed by the Deputy Prime Minister comes into effect, the English regional assemblies will also require a similar linkage. Surely we should enable the devolution process to evolve in such a way that we give manifest effect to reducing Whitehall's

    245
    interference, which would mean a reduction in the number of not only ministries, but Ministers. We have far more Ministers today than when the British empire existed and we were responsible for large parts of the world.
    What happened on Thursday was no carefully thought through strategy to achieve that aim; it was a series of slap-dash afterthoughts. Is transport a part-time job? Anyone who sat through Transport questions an hour or two ago will know that it is a full-time job, and so it should be. Is the Leader of the House underemployed? If he thinks that that is true, he does not know what is coming to him when he tries to organise next year's business. I have explained the scale of the pressure on our business if the Lord Chancellor's position is abolished.
    There is also the extraordinary example of a Member who represents a Scottish constituency having responsibility for the NHS in England. I remember only too well that when Labour Members were in opposition they used to make fun of a Welsh Secretary, the right hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), who came not from Wales but from Yorkshire. They still do that, but they should not if they want to contend that the new arrangement is the proper way to hold a Minister to account.
    If part of the package included real movement on the role of the House of Lords, we would see a grain of consistency in the package, but that is not the case.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I am listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman's interesting speech, but how do we link in, as he put it, one legislature to another? That subject troubled the House for many Sessions, both in 1978 and 1979, and subsequently in the late 1990s. It is easier said than done.
    Mr. Tyler: I agree with the Father of the House, but there are two roles to consider. One is the responsibility for matters that are not devolved but are reserved to the House. Those are variable in terms of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The second role is, as he said, the linkage between the legislatures. Other countries have succeeded in finding a way of doing that. I am not going to make a full suggestion off the cuff, but I accept the point that he articulated. I hope that he, too, will take seriously the lack of consultation on this exercise and will respect the motion.
    The Labour party manifesto for the last general election committed it to ensuring that the Lords become "more representative and democratic". In that context, we need to look carefully at the role of the Law Lords. We have no misgivings about working towards the establishment of a supreme court. I do not like the name and hope that we find another one, but I am sure that there is widespread support for such a body, not just in the legal profession, but outside it and across the House. As we heard, Conservative spokespersons are firmly in favour of it. It has been more than a century since the reform was promoted as necessary.
    I hope that the Prime Minister will understand, if he takes the trouble to read the debate, that Members on both sides of the House and in both Houses share the
    246
    same objective. What they object to is the manner in which the reform has been carried out—as if it were a game of musical chairs in which the pianist is only interested in ensuring that his friends stay on their respective seats while the others are pushed off the end. That is not a proper way to monkey with the British constitution.
    The evidence given by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst and the noble Lord Strathclyde shows that the Conservative party is not opposed to reform even though it has been characterised as such. I am glad about that. Some Conservative Members might not want to reform anything, but on the whole there is a consensus that reform must take place. That is particularly true of the issue of a supreme court. I pray in aid the words of Lord Howe, the former deputy leader of the Conservative party, who said in the Lords yesterday that
    "all the measures comprised in the package presented on Thursday have had substantial and growing support for a long time".
    Lord Howe could not have been more specific. I do not think that he would love me if I described him as a dangerous radical, but he is probably broadly attuned to the views of many members of the House of Lords. He went on to say that objections arise because
    "this package of proposals, whatever their intrinsic merits, arrives in the form of a pre-emptive bunch of products produced as a misguided political change of governance."—[Official Report, 16 June 2003; Vol. 649, c. 540–41.]
    I cannot see how any Government Member can deny that that is true.
    There has been a complete lack of effective consultation. Even now, there is an extraordinarily vague approach to the issue of consultation. We must find a way of reintroducing cross-party discussion of these important issues and the consequences not foreseen by No. 10. Is there nobody in No. 10 with any constitutional or historical perspective? Taken with the Prime Minister's last-minute U-turn about the composition of a reformed second Chamber, that surely suggests that, at the very least, he is badly advised.
    Mr. Bryant: The hon. Gentleman tempts me to argue not about elections in the House of Lords but about elections to the House of Lords. He is still arguing that we should have reform and consultation; the only thing that is wrong is the reshuffle last week, which led to the process in which we are now engaged. However, the only way to start putting together a package of proposals is to create a Department that will eventually take on the new responsibilities.
    Mr. Tyler: That is clearly absurd. However, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall deal with what we should do next. Let us be positive and, as he may play a role in this, perhaps he will listen carefully.
    All is not lost. The House will recall that the Prime Minister was belatedly persuaded to accept that a substantial constitutional change to the Lords required a cross-party consensus. Very belatedly, after every other attempt to reach sensible conclusions, he permitted the appointment of a special Joint Committee—this is where the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) may come in—which is still in

    247
    existence. It has nothing to do at the moment because the Government have effectively blocked any further development of proposals on the reform of the House of Lords. However, it includes distinguished former Ministers from all parties—except my own, sadly—in both Houses. They are currently on stand-by—they are not doing any work because of the mess that No. 10 has got itself into—but they may well be prepared, given an appropriate remit, to look at the wider constitutional options created by the bungled changes of last week. They could then give guidance to both Houses about what should happen next, especially in the second Chamber, whether reformed or not.
    I hope that the Leader of the House will confirm that he is on record as a democratic reformer of the Lords. I appreciate and welcome the fact that, unlike the former Lord Chancellor, who will now have more time with his pension, and the previous Leader of the House, he is committed to an elected, democratic and representative House of Lords. If we see a wider picture of reform, we may realise that there is more sense to modernising its operation, to which he has referred in media interviews, and the other proposals that will apparently be introduced. It would be wrong to start fiddling with the responsibilities of the House of Lords without looking at its constitution and composition.
    Meanwhile, the newly established Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, which is chaired by my right hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), could look at the judicial changes that have been proposed. That is the proper parliamentary way in which to make progress—it is not achieved by diktat by No. 10 over a weekend to try to satisfy the aspirations and ambitions of colleagues. I very much hope that there will be a return to parliamentary governance to deal with these issues, rather than the diktat of an overweening and powerful Executive.
    The motion rightly emphasises the Government's failure to consult and to appreciate the consequences of that. I hope that this House and the Lords will rise to the occasion. I am indebted to the hon. Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who is sadly not in the Chamber but takes these issues seriously, for the following quotations. In 1908, when Henry Chapman MP claimed that the House of Lords was the "watchdog of the constitution", my erstwhile Liberal colleague Lloyd George responded that it was "Mr. Balfour's poodle." In the next few weeks, we shall learn which House deserves which epithet from the way in which we respond to this opportunity.
    2.25 pm
    Huw Irranca-Davies: I am pleased to be able to contribute to this debate, but shall confine myself to the implications of the reshuffle for the Secretary of State for Wales and the Wales Office. Those who believe that the Secretary of State for Wales is no more and that the Wales Office is dead and buried need mourn no longer. Reports of their deaths are premature and, Lazarus-like, both have risen from the grave after untimely obituaries appeared in the press last week. The headlines rang loud and the editorials even louder, but they rang false. "The Welsh Office is dead," say the press and the Opposition, but I say, "Long live the Welsh Office.
    248
    We have had an interesting few days. Regrettably, there are no Welsh nationalists in the Chamber at the moment, although I am sure that they will be back. They periodically wax lyrical about the lack of workload in the Wales Office, but they were suddenly convulsed by fits of rage when their punch bag was taken away from them. All of a sudden, instead of portraying staff in the Wales Office as people who sat on their hands and whiled away the hours until home time, nationalists talked about them as dedicated staff who do not have enough hours in the day to cover the important issues in Wales. The Wales Office was transformed in the teary eyes of the nationalists into a dear family home that they had loved and would miss, and the Secretary of State was transformed into a dearly loved relative. Such tears were wept as have not been seen in many a Welsh funeral.
    The nationalists' sadness was eased by their realisation that the change could provide a convenient argument for the further transfer of powers, including primary legislation, to the National Assembly for Wales. Surely, they whispered, there was a cunning plan by No. 10 to introduce primary powers for the National Assembly by the back door. Without a Secretary of State and a fully staffed Wales Office, they argued, there was an unanswerable case for primary powers for the National Assembly, as well as better drafted and considered Welsh law. The nationalists dried their eyes, and saw that that a step had been taken towards their holy grail—the establishment of an independent Wales for an independent Welsh people.
    The nationalists will of course deny that that is the case, and I am sure that they will take issue with me. They do not mention the I-word any more. New members of the party are screened to ensure that "independence" does not pass their lips. Older members drift away from the party in disgrace or dismay, but if they stay, they have to swear solemn oaths and forbear ever uttering the words, "Independent Wales". The nats are happy that the reshuffle has resulted in the misunderstood prospect of a step in the right direction. They went into overdrive, and some of members of the Welsh press followed them like lemmings—"What do we want? More powers! When do we want them? Now!" It all looked so good on Thursday, but there was a problem—they had it all wrong.
    It was soon clear that there was still a Secretary of State for Wales, and a merry band of men and women in the Wales Office. On Thursday, as I told the House in an intervention, I had to deal with a case in my constituency involving a threat to several thousand jobs. I raised that on Thursday evening in the Lobby with my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who assured me that he would consider the matter, and I await a favourable response.
    Mr. Grieve: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman could answer this question: is it not a feature of our ministerial system that Ministers are accountable for the actions of their officials? That is a central pillar. In those circumstances, how can the Secretary of State for Wales, or what is left of him, be answerable for the actions of

    249
    his officials when he does not have any responsibility for them, as they are within the domain of another Minister in another place?
    Huw Irranca-Davies: The hon. Gentleman raises an issue that can be dealt with very simply. For the purpose of Welsh questions, the Minister will be here at the Dispatch Box. For the purpose of Welsh issues, I as a Welsh Member will raise them directly with him. There is no confusion, except on the part of the Opposition.
    Mr. Evans: Does the hon. Gentleman support the decision that one person ought to do the job of Leader of the House of Commons and also the job of Secretary of State for Wales?
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Indeed. I have no difficulties with that. It was a policy advanced by the Opposition. Let me elaborate. I was one of the signatories supporting the retention of a Secretary of State for Wales. That is why I am happy, since Thursday evening when the position was made clear, and from subsequent discussions with the Wales Office, that that remains in place.
    Mr. Evans: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's response. The early-day motion that he signed stated:
    "That this House believes that the Secretary of State for Wales performs a vital role in the government of the United Kingdom; and further believes that this office should be retained as an individual cabinet post".
    Clearly, that is not the case. There is one person doing two jobs. The Lord Chancellor takes partial responsibility for Wales. The hon. Gentleman should read early-day motions before he signs them, because since the reshuffle he has clearly changed his mind.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Not only can I read an early-day motion, I can be instrumental in drawing one up. The Secretary of State retains his position as an individual Cabinet member. He is also Leader of the House of Commons. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that there are advantages for some of us with Welsh seats in having a Leader of the House who is also Secretary of State for Wales.
    Mr. Bryant: My hon. Friend knows that some Welsh nationalists and, I think, Scottish nationalists, have been arguing that the major constitutional follow-on in Wales from last week is that full law-making powers should be given to the Welsh Assembly. Does he believe that, if we were ever to go down that route, we should have a referendum?
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely and categorically. I shall return to that in a moment. It is important to the reshuffle and what it meant in the eyes of Back Benchers for constitutional issues for Wales, and what it seemed to mean for Opposition Members, particularly in the nationalist community.
    How did the nationalists, the Tories and everybody else who jumped on the passing bandwagon manage to get it so wrong, as was exemplified once again today from the Opposition Front Bench? It is a problem familiar to all those who leap to conclusions, rather than
    250
    waiting for the full story to emerge. It is a condition referred to in political, if not clinical, circles as premature extrapolation.
    Mr. Francis Maude: The hon. Gentleman scoffs at people, who, he says, have got it wrong. That includes almost every observer of the political scene, as well as almost every participant in the political scene, including many newly appointed Ministers. Does it occur to him that the reason why people are confused about the situation is that it is the most God-awful mess?
    Huw I rranca-Davies: I can only speak from a personal perspective. At the moment when several thousand jobs in my constituency were at risk, I had no difficulty knowing where to address my concerns—and that was on the evening of the announcement. I assume that the right hon. Gentleman was present earlier when I intervened. It may be a good idea to provide an aide memoire or idiot's guide to clarify the current position.
    Mr. Bercow: It is not entirely clear to me which is the more striking phenomenon: the hon. Gentleman's loyalty or his ambition. Doubtless that will become clear in due course. I understand his focus on Welsh matters. Given that he is one of a handful of defenders of the Government present today, can he answer the straightforward question whether the Scotland Office is former or current?
    Huw Irranca-Davies: The answer has already been given by the Secretary of State, who is far worthier than Ito give it. The hon. Gentleman directs his question to the wrong person, but I can tell him categorically with respect to the Wales Office, which seems to be a source of confusion among Opposition Members, that the Secretary of State's position still exists and that he is an independent Minister.
    What are the constitutional implications of the reshuffle for Wales? At present, despite the speculation in the press, they are zero—zilch, nothing. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary continue in their roles and, at Welsh questions, the House will have a Welsh Minister at the Dispatch Box. Their staff can sleep secure in their jobs. [Laughter.] For accuracy in Hansard, I should rephrase that. The staff will sleep well in their beds after completing a hard day's work at the Wales Office. In the Welsh Grand Committee and at the Welsh Affairs Committee, the Secretary of State for Wales, my right hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Peter Hain) and the Parliamentary Secretary. Department for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), will display their customary surefootedness. When issues in Welsh constituencies arise, I and fellow Members will know on which door to knock—Gwydr house is still standing.
    Meanwhile, the Richard commission continues with its work, taking soundings on the future of the Welsh Assembly, the powers it should have, whether it should have more, when it should have more powers and so on. Does the reshuffle have any impact on the Richard! commission? Not immediately. The commission should not discard the evidence that it has taken so far, because at this time nothing has changed.
    One would not believe that if one read the letter from a leading nationalist figure, a former Member of the House and the Assembly, Cynog Dafis, in The Western

    251
    Mail today. Its relevance is such that the House may allow me to read a short extract. He writes that "It follows"—from the reshuffle—
    "that the National Assembly should, as a matter of urgency, at least get full legislative powers in the areas of its competence, and preferably responsibility for additional policy areas and powers of taxation as well."
    One can see there the problem of premature extrapolation in action. One can also see hidden behind it the missing I-word—independence for Wales.
    The nationalist camp should come clean about their aspirations and be honest with the people of Wales. Their vision is not of a strong and powerful Wales within the United Kingdom, but of an independent Wales. They should not hide behind calls for increased powers in the National Assembly. They should come out of the closet, be proud of the ideals on which their party was built, be proud to be nationalists, and stop hiding behind a smokescreen of clever words and pseudo-socialism.
    There may well come a time when increased powers for the Assembly are appropriate. I believe that that time will come, but we should not rush at it. We should take one step at a time. Let us prove to the people of Wales that the Assembly can maximise the powers that it currently possesses. Then, and only then, let us argue the case for more powers. If we are to go forward with further devolution of powers—not after a reshuffle, and I am one of those who believe that that will and should happen—let us go forward with the backing of the people of Wales. There is no consensus at present, but that may change, and it may change sooner rather than later.
    For now, the existing profitable partnership continues—a Labour Secretary of State for Wales and a Wales Office that works closely with the Labour Welsh Assembly Government. I make no apologies for emphasising the Labour nature of those positions and institutions, if for no other reason than to remind the Lib Dems of their futile and shameless showboating as a minor coalition partner in the Assembly. It was credit for everything and blame for nothing.
    Those Labour politicians and Governments, working closely together for the betterment of the people of Wales, will continue, following the Government announcements. That partnership has delivered devolution, objective 1 funding, a Children's Commissioner for Wales, welfare to work targeted at the areas of highest unemployment and economic inactivity, massive investment in schools and hospitals, financial settlements year after year that far outstrip any hypothetical tinkering with the Barnett formula, retention of community health councils, the national minimum wage and huge advances in workers rights. This is a very Welsh and very Labour partnership, and it is a very fruitful one for the people of Wales.
    The motion suggests that the reshuffle is a shambles. I suggest without fear of sensible contradiction that the motion is a sham, and I urge the House to reject it
    252
    emphatically. The reshuffle has, in constitutional terms, provided this country with an opportunity to move confidently forward with reforms that were so long overdue that the bailiffs were coming to enforce them. The Tories would have us tear up constitutional reforms and return to a golden age of yesteryear. I regard those views fondly, sentimentalists as Opposition Members are, living in a world gone by. The nationalists would have us tear up the Government of Wales Act 1998 and put in its place measures to introduce independence—a word that they only whisper. Even though that word is only whispered nowadays in dark corners of nationalist meetings, I look on nationalists fondly, romantics that they are, living in a world that will never be. One party is in the past; another in a fantasy future.
    While I look with tenderness on the misplaced aspirations on the Opposition Benches, I look for realism and direction from the Government. The ongoing constitutional arrangements continue to provide the very best for the people of Wales while recognising that devolution within the parameters of the Government of Wales Act is fluid and not fixed over time.
    Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman spoke about the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales. In his estimation, how much time should the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain) spend on Welsh matters as a percentage, and what percentage should he spend on being Leader of the House of Commons?
    Mr. Bryant: One hundred per cent. on both.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Absolutely. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State should spend all the time necessary to ensure that both jobs are fulfilled to the nth degree. I am sure that he will do that; he has proven it already and he will continue to do so.
    Pete Wishart: It is fortuitous that the Leader of the House is a Welsh Cabinet member. I understand that there are currently two Welsh Cabinet members who could fulfil the role of Secretary of State. What would happen to that role, however, if there were no Welsh Cabinet members?
    Mr. Bryant: It is inconceivable.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Yes. In the near future, the hypothetical situation that the hon. Gentleman posed is inconceivable. Should it come about, it will need to be dealt with, but at this moment, it is inconceivable.
    I urge colleagues not to view Opposition Members too harshly. As I hope that I have explained, they aspire to inhabit a very different world, so the motion is somewhat detached from reality. Please treat Opposition Members gently, but send the motion back to the realms of fantasy whence it came.
    2.42 pm
    Sir Patrick Cormack: That was a most elegantly written and beautifully delivered speech, but it was pretty high on the grovel scale. We are discussing a very important matter this afternoon, and I have to say something that I said a fortnight ago when we held one of those short foreign affairs debates. I deeply regret the fact that neither the part-time Secretary of State nor the very full-time shadow Secretary of State is in the Chamber for the duration of this debate. In short debates, there is no reason why the principal participants should not stay. I hope that that will be registered.
    We have to try to make sense of one of the most chaotic reshuffles in British political history. The hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) was right that this debate is not a question of discussing the detailed merits of the proposals, putting to one side the fact that we do not know precisely what the proposals are. The manner of their introduction was an insult to this House and to the other place. I wonder whether the Queen was told. We shall never know, but, frankly, it was thoroughly insulting to play around with the constitution in this way.
    I wonder how it happened. I do not think that the Prime Minister is a malicious or malevolent man. I think that he has no real sense of history and no real regard for this place. He regards us as a bit of an inconvenience and encumbrance, and we distract him from the vision thing. I think that last Thursday he was sitting in his office at No. 10 and talking about the new Ministry of justice, for which we had all been prepared by the spin doctors. Then, Sir Humphrey, or whoever plays that role, said "Well, Prime Minister, the Home Secretary won't stand for that; you can't do it." The Prime Minister said "Oh dear. Well, I can't upset David, can I?" The reply was "No, Prime Minister, you can't upset David, it wouldn't be right", so he said, "I know what we'll do. There's my friend Charlie. He's a proper Charlie. We'll give him the job." So the flatmate was sent for and given a very good job.
    The only problem was that nobody else principally involved had been informed of what was going to happen, and the Prime Minister himself had not for a moment thought of the implications. So there followed the extraordinary stream of announcements that my right hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House read out to us in his inimitable fashion in a brilliant speech. First, the office of Lord Chancellor was to be abolished. We were going to have a Department for Constitutional Affairs and the Wales Office and the Scotland Office were to be subsumed. That seemed to the Prime Minister to be "a good thing", in the words of "1066 and All That", but he had not thought it through. He had not realised that one cannot abolish an office that, as the hon. Member for North Cornwall said, is mentioned in no fewer than 500 current statutes. One cannot abolish the other two offices either, as they are again mentioned in a significant number of current statutes.
    Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Patrick Cormack:In a minute.
    Mr. Bercow: Don't be cruel.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I would not dare to be cruel to such a delightful hon. Gentleman.
    254
    One cannot simply abolish things in that way, so there was backtracking, corrigenda were issued and we were told that the office of Lord Chancellor had not been abolished. I was standing at the Bar of the House of Lords last week. This House had adjourned at six o'clock, so I went to the House of Lords to see how it would receive the changes and what it had been told. As I told you, Madam Deputy Speaker, when you so kindly dealt with my point of order on Friday morning, it had been told nothing. I think that it was Lord Onslow who raised a point of order and moved the Adjournment of the House. It was absolutely plain from the sparsely populated Government Benches that nobody had a clue. The Leader of the House of Lords, amiable Welshman that he is, came bustling in and tried to be emollient—I had a pleasant little chat with him afterwards—but he did not have a clue either. He made the best of a very bad job with his carefully chosen words, but nobody knew what was happening or what the implications were. Nobody knew whether there was a Lord Chancellor and what the new Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs was going to do, or otherwise.
    Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman is obviously pregnant with speech.
    Mr. Bryant: Much as I was enjoying the hon. Gentleman's musings about what might or might not have happened at No. 10 Downing street last Thursday afternoon, and much as I am now enjoying his Stanley Holloway-like monologue on his Bar time encounters in the House of Lords last week, I wonder what his position is on the supreme court. After all, that is one of the most important of the constitutional implications that we are meant to be talking about.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Frankly, we are not meant to be talking about that. The motion makes it plain—we are talking about processes of consultation and a botched reshuffle. There will come a time for discussing other issues and I shall be very happy to debate the need for a supreme court or otherwise. Hon. Members on both sides of the House will not be entirely surprised to hear that I am an innate conservative and that I do not believe in change unless it is absolutely demonstrated that it will be for the better. I believe that there is a perfectly coherent case for a supreme court and for divesting the Lord Chancellor of many of his responsibilities in the way mentioned by the hon. Member for North Cornwall, but I think that that needs to be debated in detail.
    We need a White Paper setting out the Government's proposals. Personally, I believe that it is such an important matter that I would go through all the stages—a Green Paper, a White Paper, a draft Bill that could be examined, with pre-legislative scrutiny so that witnesses could be called, and then the Bill itself. At this stage, I cannot say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) precisely what line I would take on the question of a supreme court. I am truly open-minded about that, although I have a slight predisposition in favour of not changing.
    Mr. Tyler: I am following closely what the hon. Gentleman says, and I have a great deal of sympathy

    255
    with it. Has he had an opportunity to read yesterday's exchanges in the other place, where it became clear, as the discussions proceeded, that a great many important issues have not yet been faced? Perhaps even more significantly, there has been a full discussion in the other place, but we still have not had one—we are hoping to get one tomorrow.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Precisely. As the hon. Gentleman will know, I raised a point of order yesterday to ask for it. In response to my having alerted Mr. Speaker to the fact that I was going to do that, he said that he had been in touch with No. 10 and that we would get our statement tomorrow. We are all very grateful to Mr. Speaker, but frankly it is still not good enough: we should have had it yesterday at the same time as the statement in the Lords.
    In those exchanges, many of the implications of the changes were discussed. They range from the very profound, such as the fact that—as even the hon. Member for Rhondda would acknowledge—the Lord Chancellor's ancient office has attached to it some exceptionally important functions that must be discharged by somebody, to what some would consider trivial, such as who presents the Queen with the speech at the state opening of Parliament. [Interruption.] Well, somebody has to do it: it is an important minor role in our constitution. None of those things has been thought through.
    Another aspect that I deeply resent is that the Government have done exactly what they allege that they do not want to do—they have politicised the role of the Lord Chancellor. The Lord Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs are now, and for an indefinite period, one and the same person. Lord Falconer will sit on the Woolsack and preside over the House of Lords for what could turn out to be a long time. He will have the job of appointing judges—an important part of the Lord Chancellor's role, which, I rather agree with the hon. Member for North Cornwall, should go elsewhere. All the while, he will be a highly political member of the Cabinet, wearing his dome-like hat as Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, with a relationship that has not yet been worked out with his two underlings, the Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland. Are they, in fact, underlings? Again, we do not know.
    In the first flush of happiness from his new marriage, on which we all congratulate him, the Secretary of State for Wales may think that he is about to enter a double honeymoon—one with his wife and the other with Lord Falconer. However, I wonder how long the latter will last, and what he will do when real issues of substance crop up between them. I also want to know—the Secretary of State did not reply to this part of my intervention, but the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Shipley (Mr. Leslie) will no doubt tell me—how much of his time he envisages devoting to being Leader of the House and how much to being Secretary of State for Wales. Similarly, how much time will the Secretary of State for Transport decide to devote to that role and how much to being Secretary of State for Scotland?
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie):I have great respect for the hon. Gentleman's contribution, but does he acknowledge that the proposition that more than one post should be in the hands of a particular individual was first posited by the previous Leader of the Opposition? How much time did he feel should be spent on those respective posts?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I was the party's spokesman on constitutional affairs at that time, and I did not think that the system worked all that well, to be honest. [Interruption.] I said so at the time. I have never been one to hide my views. After all, a fortnight ago I was the one Conservative Member to march into the Government Lobby to support the Prime Minister on the inquiry into Iraq. My hon. Friends probably believed that I was profoundly mistaken, but I thought that I was right, so I did it.
    It was a perfectly understandable experiment for an Opposition party to enter into, especially at a time when it had been so decimated at the polls, but it is not a good long-term constitutional answer to the problems of the United Kingdom and, in particular, to those of Scotland and Wales.
    Mr. Garnier: The answer to my hon. Friend's question about how much time this bifurcated Minister will spend on each of his jobs is surely this: nobody knows, least of all the Government, partly because they have not thought about it.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Absolutely. I want to mention one very tragic example: please God nothing like it will ever happen again. I remember Aberfan. What would a Secretary of State be able to do other than to devote every hour of every day to an issue such as that? Nobody would criticise him for so doing.
    Mr. George Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I will in a second.
    Being Leader of this House is a crucial role in Parliament.
    Mr. Foulkes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: If the right hon. Gentleman will just contain himself for a moment, of course I will.
    There is no more important job in the House of Commons, other than that of Speaker, than Leader of the House. Having been shadow Leader of the House, I know a little bit about the role. The Leader of the House should be available at all times to all Members of the House. He should not have time to do any other significant job. One either says that being Secretary of State for Wales is an unimportant job with no duties—I do not believe that that is the case—or that the post of Leader of the House has been demoted.
    Mr. Foulkes: I tried to intervene earlier to prevent the hon. Gentleman from going down a blind alley. He clearly does not understand what has happened as a

    257
    result of devolution. The First Minister of Wales and the First Minister of Scotland deal with such matters now. In the event of a tragedy, they would be responsible for the police service and all the emergency services: they would be on-site. The Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland have responsibilities, but they are principally here in the House representing those countries.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Speaking as one who has a son who stood for the Scottish Parliament, I am afraid that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman. If he thinks that in the aftermath of an Aberfan or a Dunblane the Secretary of State for Wales or for Scotland could stay in England and escape criticism, he is absolutely wrong. One should either get rid of the office entirely or, if one keeps it because one thinks that it is important, give it to somebody who does it full-time.
    Mr. Bryant: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: No, the hon. Gentleman has had his turn.
    I come back to the role of the Leader of the House. It is a role of prime importance. The Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs is not the Leader of the House's new deputy—he will wind up the debate because of his responsibilities for constitutional affairs; it is all very confusing—but he can at least pass this on to the right hon. Gentleman. If the Leader of the House is to make a success of his job, and I hope that he will, he will have to try to be a little less partisan than he was this afternoon. The great Leaders of the House in my time here—good gracious, it is 33 years tomorrow—have been able to put their party allegiance at a little bit of a distance. The greatest of them was probably John Biffen.
    Mr. Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: In a moment, yes. My hon. Friend has rubber pants that make him bounce up and down, but he will have to stay there for a moment or two.
    Mr. Bryant: He will have to contain himself in his rubber pants.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Absolutely.
    John Biffen was able to distance himself a little. Not all Leaders of the House have done it as well. The right hon. Member for Dewsbury (Ann Taylor), who currently chairs the Intelligence and Security Committee, was a good Leader of the House in the Government's first year. However, let us not discuss personalities. If the new Leader of the House is to do his duty properly, he will not have time to be Secretary of State for Wales, whether he receives a salary for both jobs or not.
    I shall now give way to my exuberant and irrepressible hon. Friend.
    Mr. Bercow: I want to underline the significance of my hon. Friend's point. Many of us have long admired
    258
    some of the political talents of the right hon. Member for Neath (Peter Hain). However, this afternoon, he gave as hesitant and unpersuasive an account of himself as I have ever had the misfortune to hear.
    My hon. Friend is developing his thesis on the role of the Leader of the House. Does he agree that the right hon. Member for Neath could usefully learn from the dedication to the role of the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Margaret Beckett) and, whatever we think of his decision, the right hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook)? Both were Leaders of the House of impeccable quality.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: That is entirely fair. Both spent a great deal of time here and listened to debates in which they did not participate. Leaders of the House must do such things. The performance of the current Leader of the House reminded me of the wonderful remarks in "Pickwick Papers"—weak case: abuse plaintiff's attorney. That is what the right hon. Gentleman did all afternoon.
    Kevin Brennan:Argument weak—tell a joke.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: At least some of us can try to do that, whereas others sit, po-faced and smug, and make irrelevant sedentary interventions.
    I should like to consider the constitutional implications of the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Health. I am delighted that the Father of the House, the author of the West Lothian question, is here. I hope that he might be moved to utterance and that, if he wants to utter, he will have the good fortune to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. He knows, probably better than the rest of us put together, the implications of appointing a Minister with a Scottish constituency and no say in anything to do with health in Scotland to dictate what will happen to the national health service in England and, to some extent, Wales. Although I appreciate that Wales has a measure of devolution, it is not as complete as in Scotland.
    Again, the appointment is insensitive. I also believe that it was insensitive of the Prime Minister to remove the good doctor so quickly from the post of Leader of the House. He had barely arrived. I have the honour to be a member of the House of Commons Commission, and I believe that he attended only one meeting. That was not his fault, but how can one become knowledgeable about a job in only eight or nine weeks? That is unacceptable.
    I have a higher regard than most of my colleagues for the Prime Minister. I greatly admire his courage in recent months, and have said that on many occasions. However, I believe that his attitude towards the House of Commons, whether intentional or not, is one of contempt. Moving the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) so quickly is further evidence of that. It is not as though the Prime Minister did not have talented Ministers.
    I appreciate the blow to the Prime Minister that the resignation of the previous Secretary of State for Health must have been. I believe that he resigned for the honourable reasons that he stated, and I wish him every happiness with his family, but it must have been a blow

    259
    to the Prime Minister. However, he could have called on others to fulfil the role without disrupting the affairs of the House or creating another constitutional problem.
    Last week's episode was characterised by bumbling ineptitude. We must now live with the botched consequences of that. It was instilled in me from birth that everyone has a better instinct, and I have to believe it. I therefore appeal to the Government and the Minister who will wind up to progress gently and properly. Let us have a Green Paper and ascertain what the Government want to do, if they now know. After consultation, let us have a White Paper and draft legislation. Let us call witnesses, including the Lord Chancellor and Lord Bingham, who was prayed in aid this afternoon. Let us ask them searching questions through a fairly large Committee as a pre-legislative exercise. After that, we should have a Bill.
    Nobody can pretend that such a measure would not be constitutional legislation of a high order. It should therefore be considered on the Floor of the House. Perhaps then we might reach some solutions that do not violate 1,000 years of history and retain the best of what we have and embody change only for the better. The Government have a historic opportunity. If they do not take it, they will deserve to be castigated evermore for their actions last week.
    3.6 pm
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: I hope that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) will forgive me if I do not pursue the issue of the appointment of a Scot to the English Department of Health. That may be a matter for another day.
    I have been sitting here since 12.40 pm and I did not intend to speak. However, I am becoming increasing troubled about a specific matter: the relationship of the civil service with some of the new Ministers. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs has a good record on serious civil service problems and I am especially glad to speak to him quietly.
    The Secretary of Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is my parliamentary neighbour. He is one of the most competent Ministers and has always been superb at organising his time. No one in the House organises time to greater purpose than my right hon. Friend, whom I know well. I am bothered not about time but about civil service responsibility. I am worried about a civil servant in one Department being responsible to a Minister in another and vice versa. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) mentioned that in an intervention.
    Given our tradition of Departments, what is the position of Scotland Office civil servants who are responsible to another Department, yet have a Minister in a third Department who answers questions in the House of Commons? There is a genuine difficulty with that. There may be a solution, but it is currently convenient that the Secretary of State for Transport is an extremely competent Scot. That may not always be the case; Ministers change.
    What will be future of the Scotland Office? Residual powers exist. Even my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) will
    260
    confess that some reserved powers have to be tackled in the House. We might have different views on other aspects of devolution, but surely we are united on that.
    The issue is who exercises these powers. If, by chance, there is a suitable arrangement at a particular point in time at which the Secretary of State for Transport is in a position to do the job of Secretary of State for Scotland because he is a Scot and because he is intellectually and organisationally able to do it, that is fine. But this is not a built-in situation that will continue for ever. In all seriousness, therefore, I ask the Minister to tell me—possibly when he winds up, or possibly later—how we are to reconcile something which so far as I know is absolutely new to British constitutional politics? That is the situation in which a civil servant regularly—not on an emergency basis—has to be responsible to a Minister in another Department. If that is the case, there will have to be changes in the way in which the Government operate. We have a system, but a fundamental difference is now being introduced. I just want to know how this question is to be resolved.
    3.11 pm
    Mr. Francis Maude: Like my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), I regret the absence from this part of the debate of the new Leader of the House and continuing Secretary of State, who has taken both his presences elsewhere. I should have liked to take the opportunity to congratulate him in person on his happy event last Saturday, and on the acquisition of another job. In the private sector, that is known as "going plural". It would be interesting to know at what point he proposes to draw the line, and whether he is going to acquire more offices along the way.
    I also agree with what my hon. Friend said about the tone of the speech of the new Leader of the House today. I felt a good deal of sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman, and I have quite a high regard for him, but, for him, it was like being put in to bat on a wicket, and going out to the middle of the pitch only to find that the captain of his own team had dug up the whole pitch. I think that that is as unhappy an experience as he will have had. He is normally an assured performer, but he was most ill at ease today. And rightly so, because he is being put in to bat to defend something that is very hard to defend.
    I also regret that he tried to smear almost everyone who was raising these issues as being somehow reactionary. Frankly, it is a long time since I have been called a reactionary; the normal term of abuse for me is "moderniser". I certainly see nothing sacrosanct about 1,400 years of history that would make it impossible to contemplate change. Plenty of things were commonplace 1,400 years ago which have now happily been got rid of. The idea that an office that has existed for that length of time should be preserved simply on that basis is plainly absurd.
    However, the current situation is a very unhappy one indeed. I rather wish that the new Leader of the House had done today what he has done in many other circumstances, and been bruisingly honest and admitted that this had been a cock-up, and that the whole process had been abrasive and insulting and had alienated huge numbers of people both in the political world and

    261
    outside who might, if it had been approached in a more intelligent and sensitive way, have been garnered into a gathering consensus. There is not much in the proposals that is inherently objectionable; it has just been done in the most crass way. It would have been better for the Leader of the House, on his debut event, just to admit that and say, "Let's start again, draw a line and see what we can rescue from this wreck."
    I should like to separate out some of the ingredients of this dog's breakfast. There are a number of issues involved which are not linked to each other. First, let me deal with the issue of the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland. I do not regard it as improper for their roles to become part-time and to be undertaken by Ministers carrying other responsibilities. It was pointed out in what I think was meant to be a killer point that that was our policy at the last election. It seems perfectly sensible to do that as part of the upshot of the working out of the devolution settlement, and I do not see that as inherently difficult.
    There is confusion on this issue, however. The point made by the Father of the House just now—the only point that he made in his short speech—was very important. There has been—to my mind, there remains—a good deal of confusion about how the new arrangements will work. In what sense will the Wales Office and the Scotland Office be in the new Department for Constitutional Affairs? Will there be physical co-location? Apparently not. We are told that the staff are not physically going to move in there. Is it simply that the civil servants will become part of the broader structure within the new Department? That might have something to recommend it, and it was certainly the only justification that the Leader of the House raised for this issue. I would have no particular objection to that proposal, but it has not been made clear whether that is to happen.
    Who is the permanent secretary to whom those civil servants will report for pay and rations? That raises an important point about accountability, because civil servants do not report to Ministers for their pay, rations and promotion; they very properly report to other independent, impartial civil servants. What is the route of responsibility and accountability for those civil servants? It ought not to be impossible to devise something that makes sense, and with which the House would be comfortable, but we are nowhere near having had this made clear to us. This is another example of how this issue was dodged up as an expedient to sort out some personnel issues for the Government, rather than being a well-planned, well-thought-through development of the devolution settlement.
    Mr. Leslie: To help the right hon. Gentleman, may I tell him that the new Department for Constitutional Affairs will have a permanent secretary, Sir Hayden Phillips? He will also be the permanent secretary for the Scotland Office and the Wales Office, whose officials will to all intents and purposes come under the Department for Constitutional Affairs in terms of pay and rations, to use the right hon. Gentleman's phrase.
    Mr. Maude: I am grateful to the Minister for making that clear, but that does not address the problem that is
    262
    inherent in that arrangement—namely that the civil servants have to report for their pay, rations, promotions and conditions to the head of one Department, while their political responsibility, in policy terms, is to the head of another Department. It should not be beyond the wit of man to resolve that problem. It has not been resolved, however, and it needs to be.
    Mr. Garnier: Was my right hon. Friend not further disturbed by the fact that the Secretary of State earlier justified this constitutional change-around by saying that it would provide "career certainty" for civil servants? That may or may not be a good reason for reorganising a Department, but it is certainly not a good basis for reorganising the constitution.
    Mr. Maude: I gave the Leader of the House credit for having made a slip of the tongue at that point. I am sure that he did not quite mean "career certainty".
    It is true that these vestigial Departments are unlikely to have a large enough group of civil servants for there to be meaningful career paths for them, so there is a case for putting them into a larger group for those purposes. There is, however, an issue that is as yet unresolved about how to reconcile a reporting line for career purposes that goes in one direction with a reporting line in terms of policy that goes in another.
    Kevin Brennan: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, prior to this arrangement, the line of responsibility was even more obscure, in the sense that all the civil servants in the Wales Office were on secondment from the civil service of the National Assembly for Wales?
    Mr. Maude: As I have said, it should not be impossible for these arrangements to be worked out. However, we now have a new set of arrangements that is, so far as I am aware, unprecedented in Whitehall, and people need to know what is happening. I would be surprised if the First Division Association were not pretty concerned about this, and were not raising the issue with the Government even as we speak. That is yet another example of issues that have not been thought through properly, and need to be resolved in a way that will comfort both civil servants and the House.
    The position of the Secretary of State for Health is a new departure as well. The Secretary of State for Transport is a Scottish Member of Parliament, but most transport responsibilities in Scotland have been devolved, although a number are genuinely UK-wide. For the first time, we are faced with the much-anticipated scenario of a Scottish Member of Parliament effectively presiding as an English Minister over matters that do not affect his constituency in any way. This is not quite the West Lothian question; rather, it is an extension of it.
    There is no constitutional impropriety in the situation. It is not morally reprehensible. But it is another arrangement that has not been thought through properly and will introduce tension. It is likely to cause growing resentment. Our unwritten, evolving constitution has been able to adapt and respond to anxieties and resentment among those whom we are elected to govern.
    Kevin Brennan: The right hon. Gentleman's argument is perhaps slightly weakened by the fact that even when

    263
    his party was represented in Welsh constituencies, it chose to appoint Members with English constituencies to rule over Wales as Secretaries of State.
    Mr. Evans: Labour criticised that at the time.
    Mr. Maude: As my hon. Friend says, the Labour party was very critical indeed. The situation is slightly different now, however. In those days we were being governed, for better or worse, as a unitary country, with no devolved legislatures or assemblies. Any new legislation affecting Scotland or Wales—on health, for example—had to be passed by the House of Commons, and all Members were able to vote on it here. Now the Secretary of State will not be able to vote on any legislation affecting his constituents, but will propose and implement legislation affecting the bulk of the United Kingdom—in other words, England. As I have said, that is not constitutionally improper, but I predict that it will be an increasing source of tension, anxiety and resentment.
    Mr. Bryant: The right hon. Gentleman, who is making some intelligent and sensible points, seems to accept that the reshuffle has no moral implications. His central charge, like that of the shadow Leader of the House, seems to be that by its very nature it has led to constitutional changes. But every reshuffle in the House's history has led to constitutional changes. A major change took place in 1940 when Stafford Cripps was made ambassador to Moscow, and there was no consultation beforehand.
    Mr. Maude: There was a war on at the time. The appointment of Parliament as an ambassador has never been repeated in peacetime, because it would be constitutionally improper. No permanent change was made in the constitutional arrangements then. However, I do not want to be drawn down that path.
    The hon. Gentleman is right in saying that reshuffles have frequently involved changes in the machinery of government. I do not criticise the Prime Minister for deciding to make changes in dispositions in Whitehall: that is a perfectly proper prime ministerial function, which is carried out by means of Orders in Council and implemented swiftly afterwards. What has been done in relation to the Secretaries of State for Wales and Scotland could have been done in the same way had it not been for the quaint idea of putting their offices in a newly created Department. That does not fit neatly into a system of changes in the machinery of government to which we are entirely accustomed. I am not saying that this is the end of the world—the constitution is not tottering—but the position is needlessly unclear, and the opportunity to garner a consensus for some of the changes has been lost. That is regrettable.
    I have no deep-seated belief that nothing in the Lord Chancellor's role can be changed. There are some perfectly proper issues involving the separation of powers which have never caused any great problem, but those who like things to be neat and to conform to a constitutional textbook have been agitated by such developments in the past, and they present a tempting target to those who like fiddling with constitutional matters.
    264
    One reason why no major problem has been caused in the past is that the office of Lord Chancellor has something to do with the arguably absurd ceremonial and dress involved, which confers a certain "otherness" on the holder of that office. The Lord Chancellor has never been an ordinary politician. He may have been one once—many Members of the House of Commons have been elevated to the other place and become Lord Chancellor—but once the robes of office are assumed, he takes on responsibilities that differ from those of an ordinary Cabinet Minister.
    I have no particular objection to the establishment of a judicial appointments commission. I would have some concerns over who sat on the commission and whether it was pursuing a particular agenda, but I think that a properly designed system that had been subject to proper consultation could work quite well. One reason why bias and partiality in the appointment of judges has never been a major issue is the fact that the Lord Chancellor, who is responsible for making those appointments, makes them in a detached way, not as an ordinary member of the Cabinet. If anything, Lord Chancellors have tended to compensate for the possibility of being accused of making partial appointments by veering in the other direction.
    The existing system has worked very well. I do not object to the new system, whatever it may be, but we should not justify its creation by saying that a huge problem exists and needs to be resolved. It is at the most a third-order issue.
    Keith Vaz: I am sorry that I was not present for the beginning of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department—if it is still called that—visited Edinburgh this morning, and met members of the Judicial Appointments Board of the new Scottish Executive. The system works up there: it is possible to have a separate judicial appointments commission instead of the previous post of Lord Advocate. In the light of what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, does he accept that we should have such a body, and is that now Conservative party policy?
    Mr. Maude: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that what I utter is not necessarily Conservative party policy, although it may become it. I am merely reflecting, as the motion invites us to do, on what took place last week, and which has—whatever Labour Members may say—caused a minor explosion among those who are concerned with the state of our government and our constitution. It is not necessary to have perfect answers to such matters.
    The hon. Gentleman defends the new system in Scotland by saying that it seems to work all right—or some such phrase—but frankly, that is not praising it to the skies. He says that it has not been a disaster, and there is no reason why it should be; however, the old system was not a disaster, either. There has been what the new Leader of the House would doubtless describe as a modest tidying up; it does not affect matters hugely.
    The question of a supreme court is something of a third-order issue. What is a supreme court, other than the highest court in the land? The exception is a country with a written constitution, in which such a court is

    265
    actually the guardian—the custodian—of that constitution. We do not have a written constitution, and the new supreme court will not have that function as such; it will simply operate, as the House of Lords currently does in its appellate role, as the highest court in the land. That will look neater and more like other systems, but in fact the current system has worked perfectly well.
    Mr. Tyler: The right hon. Gentleman says that we do not have a written constitution, but it is more accurate to say that we do not have a comprehensive written constitution. Of course, several issues have been addressed in statute, such as devolution to Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and London; and now, conceivably, devolution to regional assemblies will be so addressed. Indeed, our relationship with Europe, which will be written down, may well be a constitutional issue in future. I accept his general point, but he is not being quite fair in his analysis.
    Mr. Maude: We do not have a formal, comprehensive written constitution, but if the new European constitution is implemented, we will for the first time have a written constitution; it will simply not be one designed and made in Britain. That is a pity, really, but be that as it may. The supreme court issue is a relatively minor one, but it will please constitutional aficionados.
    My main point concerns not the detail of the proposed changes, some of which have been made and all of which are perfectly defensible, in their way. In fact, if the Government had approached this issue in a sensible and sensitive way, they could easily have gathered together some consensus for such changes. However, the way in which this has been handled is redolent of a Government who are losing the plot. When the Prime Minister reflects on the aftermath—the harvest—of last week's reshuffle, he may conclude that this was the time when the dusk started to come in.
    3.32 pm
    Mr. George Foulkes: It is a genuine pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude). His contribution was rather more measured than that of the shadow Leader of the House, which was an appalling, roustabout affair that was unworthy of this House. The same was true of his many interventions yesterday, during the debate on whether Mr. Speaker should have a day off. That made a mockery of this House, and the shadow Leader of the House does himself, the House and his party no service in the way in which he addresses the House on occasion.
    Today, the shadow Leader of the House was deliberately stirring things up and obfuscating the entire issue. He was obviously creating a stooshie—a phrase that we use in Scotland—to make the situation seem more awful and dramatic than it really is. I am glad that
    266
    the right hon. Member for Horsham discussed the issues in a measured and sensible way, and although that will not be so easy for me, I shall try to do the same.
    Pete Wishart: I accept what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, but I remind him of his comments to the press last week, in which he described the new arrangements as inelegant. What did he mean by that?
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman—it is almost as if he were a plant whom I placed here—as I was about to mention that point. I was a little critical of the fact that, initially, the situation was—if I am allowed to quote No. 10 spokespersons, as I undoubtedly am—"a little hazy". As the right hon. Member for Horsham said, we should be honest and say what we think, and the situation was indeed a little hazy. However, now that it has been clarified—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans) laughs, but is he not personally a constitutional outrage? He represents Ribble Valley, yet the Leader of the Opposition has purportedly appointed him shadow Secretary of State for Wales just because he has a Welsh accent—a very Welsh accent. But that is no reason why he should hold that post while representing Ribble Valley. The issues are now clear, and I am one who supports all the changes.
    The right hon. Member for Horsham was coming round, albeit reluctantly, to accept that the separation of the powers is a good idea. Lord Chancellors may have managed to separate their roles, because of their distinction or age, but I recall that Lord Hailsham had some difficulties forgetting that he was a Conservative.
    Mr. Grieve: The right hon. Gentleman is always an honest performer and would not want to perform a stooshie on the House—[Interruption.] In those circumstances, can he explain what possible advantage would be derived from abolishing—or semi-abolishing—the Lord Chancellor's post, when all that was necessary was to announce a new Lord Chancellor who could start a consultation procedure that would lead, in due course, to the creation of a supreme court?
    Mr. Foulkes: The position has been clarified, and that is exactly what is happening. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be honest about that. We both sat on the Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill and he was an intelligent contributor. Now that we know what is happening, I hope that he will acknowledge that the separation of the powers is a good thing. The House of Lords will now be able to elect its own Speaker, instead of having someone forced on it. I would have thought that the other place would be up in arms—no,raising their arms and cheering, rather than being up in arms. Cheering is what their Lordships should be doing. They now have the power to elect one of their own number as Speaker, which is a great step forward.
    Having an independent judicial appointments commission is also good. My hon. friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz) is absolutely right. In Scotland, such a system is working not just adequately, but extremely well. It was proposed under a Labour-

    267
    Liberal coalition, so I hope that the Liberal spokesman will agree that it was a good idea. In fact, the Deputy First Minister, also a Liberal, introduced it.
    Keith Vaz: My right hon. Friend is right. It is clear from Select Committee discussions that the system is working well in Scotland. The only problem is that all the judges still seem to come from the Edinburgh academy.
    Mr. Foulkes: I have raised that matter on several occasions and it certainly requires further exploration, but on another occasion.
    The House of Lords will be able to choose its own Speaker and we will have an independent judicial appointments commission answerable to a supreme court. Those are surely steps forward. It is also now clear that we shall have a strong Scottish voice in the Cabinet. My right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) did extremely well at arguing the case for Scotland during her tenure as Secretary of State for Scotland, and I am sure that the new Secretary of State for Scotland—my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling)—will do the same. As my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) said, he has the time and the ability to do so.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Stirling (Mrs. McGuire), will carry out the donkey work. I know that it is always the No. 2 in the Scottish Office who carries out such work. I did it all, and I think that my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts agrees. I sat on the performance and innovation unit in the Cabinet Office, which dealt with energy issues and energy policy for the country for the next 50 years. I enjoyed it very much, and there was a Scottish input. As I said earlier, I also sat on the Committee considering the Proceeds of Crime Bill in 2001 to help ensure that Scottish interests were pursued. I worked with the deputy Chief Whip, who was then the Minister, on behalf of Scotland. My hon. Friend the Member for Stirling will continue to do that, acting effectively for Scotland within the Department for Constitutional Affairs.
    Pete Wishart: The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) described her job as a full-time job for Scotland, but how would the right hon. Gentleman characterise that job now? What onus will be placed on the already overworked Secretary of State for Transport, who is trying to repair Britain's ailing transport infrastructure?
    Mr. Foulkes: Not only will the Secretary of State for Transport be able to carry on with that job and be the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will be able to keep the hon. Gentleman in his place at Scottish questions. Just wait for it next week.
    We also have a strong Welsh voice in the Cabinet and I have no doubt that the Leader of the House will be able to carry out the two functions.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: My hon. Friend raises an important point, which has been underplayed today in
    268
    discussion of the Wales Office, about the role and workload of our eminent colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who used to be the Under-Secretary in the Wales Office. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has also contributed massively to the Convention on the Future of Europe, and that has not been a problem.
    Mr. Foulkes: My hon. Friend is right, and that reinforces my argument. We have also seen a lack of understanding of what devolution is about. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) showed that he does not understand it and I invite him to visit Scotland or Wales to see how it is operating. Things have changed. The Secretaries of State for Wales and for Scotland do not have the same range of responsibilities that they did at the time of Aberfan or Dunblane, both of which the hon. Gentleman mentioned.
    Even the SNP does not understand devolution. The SNP Whip, who is in his place, alleged that the Secretary of State for Transport, who is also the Secretary of State for Scotland, would have trouble negotiating with himself on the amount of money to be allocated to railways in Scotland, but that job is done by the Scottish Executive now, so there is no conflict of interest.
    Mr. David Trimble: I am sorry that I was not in the Chamber earlier to hear more of the right hon. Gentleman's speech, to which I am listening with great interest. He has given a clear explanation of how the Secretary of State for Transport and the Leader of the House can also easily handle responsibilities for Scotland and Wales respectively. In the event of the renewal of devolution in Northern Ireland, to which Department could the Northern Ireland Office be linked?
    Mr. Foulkes: I shall think about that. There have been many complaints about my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid) being Secretary of State for Health, but one of the best Secretaries of State for Northern Ireland that we have had is a Welsh Member of Parliament. He is doing a very good job. This is a United Kingdom, and I would have thought that a Unionist would have understood that in this Parliament we are all equal and, therefore, any Member from the governing party can become a Minister in any Department.
    I have pointed out the irrationality of having the hon. Member for Ribble Valley as the shadow Secretary of State for Wales. Even more ridiculous is having the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait) as the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. What does Beckenham know about Scotland? The hon. Lady may have a Scottish accent and go on occasional day trips to Scotland, but her appointment is another constitutional outrage. That is why we take the stooshie—[Interruption.] Not, sushi—that is Japanese. "Stooshie" is the Scottish word. We take the stooshie that has been raised by the shadow Leader of the House for exactly what it is. He is a stirrer. He was stirring yesterday on the motion about Mr. Speaker's absence—and caused you a lot of trouble, Mr. Deputy Speaker—and he has been stirring again today.

    269
    The position is now clear. We have the separation of powers, powerful voices for Wales and Scotland in the Cabinet and one of the best operators—I was going to say fixers—as Secretary of State for Health, so we are moving forward positively.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Does the right hon. Gentleman still think that the reshuffle was inelegantly done?
    Mr. Foulkes: Yes. The hon. Gentleman knows that I am honest. Perhaps that is why I am on the Back Benches, not the Front Bench. I said that the reshuffle was not elegant and that it was hazy, but it has worked out right in the end. I hope that he will also be honest. In his speech, he appeared to take the view that although the reshuffle had not been managed in the most elegant way, we have ended up with a good solution. It is good for the civil servants, including my excellent old friends in the Scotland Office. They are now together with the civil servants from the Wales Office in the Department for Constitutional Affairs, and that will provide a career structure for them. That is a move in the right direction.
    We have clarity now, and I hope that when the hon. Member for Beckenham comes to reply, she will remember which constituency she represents and more careful than the shadow Leader of the House. She should accept that we are moving in the right direction. Interestingly, the shadow Leader of the House was asked again and again about the Tories' policy on separation of powers and the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Answer was there none. I hope that when the hon. Member for Beckenham replies to the debate, she will do more than merely continue to snipe away at the Government. The shadow Leader of the House offered only obfuscation, but we need to hear what the Tories would do in respect of reform. I think that the reforms move in the right direction. I hope that we will move even further.
    3.45 pm
    Pete Wishart: As always, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Carrick. Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes). At the outset, I want to say that this has turned out to be one of the most truncated ministerial reshuffles in modern history. I should like to see the back of the envelope on which the Department for Constitutional Affairs was cobbled together. I want to know what was crossed out, and see all the improvised additions. The Department is already quite an achievement. In one fell move, the Prime Minister has managed to outrage public opinion in Scotland and Wales, and the opinion of the legal establishment in England as well.
    I also want to make it clear at the start of my speech that there is no wailing or lamenting in the streets about the demise of the former Scotland Office, and that no one is especially upset about the removal of the former Secretary of State for Scotland. Just the opposite: there is a quiet sense of satisfaction that we are now part of the way into the process of abolishing the Scotland Office once and for all, and of getting it out of the way.
    However, who would have believed that the opportunity to move on constructively from devolution would end in this Heath Robinson Department that has
    270
    been cobbled together and which serves absolutely no one? Yet one thing at least is certain—even though the detail has seemed to change almost on a daily basis, the exercise has proved to be an unmitigated disaster for this discredited Labour Government who are now struggling to fill Cabinet seats, for the devolution settlement, and for the Scottish people, whose economic and social interests continue to be let down by the way in which they are governed from London.
    It is heartening to see the Government throw off the shackles of spin, but who would have thought that they would do so with such aplomb? The Government pride themselves on presentation, but they seem to have forgotten about that entirely when making this announcement. They seem to have swapped spin for total political incompetence.
    I always believed that we might get something of more substance if the Prime Minister concentrated less on political presentation. I could not have been more wrong. Even at this late stage of the reshuffle, it is difficult to know exactly what has been announced or who is in charge of what. If this is a job-share arrangement, I should like to see the job description involved.
    How have we got here? On Thursday evening, we were told that there would be a new Health Secretary and the new Department for Constitutional Affairs. There was no mention in any of the press releases of the Scotland Office or the Wales Office. I think that it was presumed that both would be abolished, but someone forgot to tell that to the new Leader of the House. He told the assembled media—anyone who was prepared to listen—that he was still Secretary of State for Wales. Apparently, it had also been forgotten that the Government of Wales Act 1998 requires there to be a Secretary of State for Wales.
    Overnight, we got a clarification: the Wales Office and the Scotland Office were not going to be abolished. What an absolute and utter disaster. It was business as usual. That was definitive—there was not going to be any reduction in the size, quality and role of the Secretary of State for Scotland. It was a matter of, "Move along, there's nothing to see here." Behind the doors of the Scotland Office, however, officials were working on the substance of the proposal—a fact that was confirmed by officials in that Department on Friday.
    On Friday afternoon, everything was crystal clear. Downing street said that matters were a bit hazy. It seemed that the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales would still be in place, although neither would have a Department, budget or staff. An unelected peer would be in charge of the new Department for Constitutional Affairs. It seemed—although we are still not sure—that he would speak for that Department in the Cabinet, with Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales still present.
    It has been suggested that the Secretary of State for Transport is a capable chap. I have no reason to deny that. He has proved himself in the Chamber and is a master of his brief, but he is very busy trying to fix the crumbling mess that is the UK's transport

    271
    infrastructure. It has also been suggested that he is less than thrilled about acquiring what the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) described only last week as a full-time job.
    The Secretary of State for Transport has been made Secretary of State for Scotland solely because he is Scottish, available and in the Cabinet, but what happens if he is reshuffled? What happens if he follows the example of the former Health Secretary, the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and decides to spend more time with his family? Will the job of Secretary of State for Scotland follow the right hon. Gentleman around the Cabinet? If he decided to leave the Cabinet, would it leave with him through the Cabinet Office's exit door?
    The situation for Wales is even more precarious; only two Ministers speak for Wales, so I am sure that my Welsh colleagues will be checking on their health.
    Mr. Tom Harris: Can the hon. Gentleman clarify the position of the Scottish National party? He complained when there was a full-time Secretary of State for Scotland; now he complains that that responsibility is shared with another Cabinet post. Would he prefer it if there was a separate individual to argue for Scotland at the Cabinet table, in which case the SNP has reversed its view, or is his way of standing up for Scotland to take Scotland's voice completely away from the Cabinet?
    Pete Wishart: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point. We have a Scottish Parliament, with grown-up Ministers who can act on behalf of Scotland because they represent Scotland. The Parliament can deal with things effectively.
    I remain concerned about my colleagues from Wales because there are only two Ministers. What if anything happened to them? Would the job of Secretary of State for Wales disappear?
    John Cryer: Will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Harris)? Does the hon. Gentleman want a part-time Secretary of State, a full-time Secretary of State or no Secretary of State at all?
    Pete Wishart: The solution is neat and simple: to return the powers reserved by the Westminster Parliament to the Scottish Parliament where they belong. Rather than a half-baked solution with a part-time Secretary of State, Scotland needs that transfer of powers, with the functions of the Scotland Office returned to the Scottish Parliament. That is what I want; that is what we require in Scotland and that is what will enable Scotland to move forward.
    Scotland's economic growth is half that of the United Kingdom as a whole. We have the worst unemployment in the UK—[HoN. MEMBERS: "That is not true."] We need to transfer powers to Scotland so that we can move forward—[Interruption.]
    Huw Irranca-Davies rose—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman intervenes, I must tell the House that I do not want sedentary barracking; it does not help the debate.
    Huw Irranca-Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am grateful to the hon. Member for North
    272
    Tayside (Pete Wishart) for giving way. As the representative of the nationalist community on the Opposition Benches, will he explain whether his solution holds true for Plaid Cymru in Wales? Is that its aspiration?
    Pete Wishart: I am grateful to be described as the representative of the nationalist community, but it is clear that Plaid Cymru has argued coherently that a Secretary of State will be required until primary legislative powers are transferred to the Welsh Assembly. That position is clear and I have seen press releases to that effect; it certainly makes sense to me.
    Before that transfer of powers can take place, something else has to happen immediately: we must ensure that the £7 million for the operating costs of the former Scotland Office is transferred to the Scottish Parliament as a priority. That money must be put back into front-line services—the people's priorities of education, health and crime reduction. Those funds must not be transferred to a strange cobbled-together Department, which will not represent Scotland or ensure that it receives a good share.
    Rather than appointing part-time politicians to meaningless posts, the democratically elected Scottish Parliament should take full responsibility for its own affairs. That solution would be transparent and democratic; the Government's plans are neither.
    Just as it is undemocratic that an unelected peer is at the head of the Department for Constitutional Affairs, so it is undemocratic, as many hon. Members have mentioned, that a Member representing a Scottish constituency is in charge of the health system south of the border. The new Secretary of State for Health can introduce all manner of unpopular reforms, such as foundation hospitals, and then escape to Scotland where such innovations have been rejected by the Scottish Executive. We have had the West Lothian question for the past 30 years; now we are moving on to the Hamilton, North question.
    Are those the actions of a modern, forward-thinking and visionary Government? Are they the actions of a Government who are putting the interests of the people of Scotland at the heart of the major constitutional decisions that they are taking on our behalf? The qualifications for leading the vanguard of constitutional reform and taking our political institutions into the 21st century seem to be based on being the Prime Minister's flatmate and golfing partner.
    The Government's solution suits no one; it is completely unsustainable. The First Minister for Scotland has already talked about moving on from the arrangements. I cannot support them and that is why we in the nationalist community will vote against the Government this evening.
    3.54 pm
    Mr. Edward Garnier: I shall speak as quickly as possible; indeed I shall gallop—something we do a lot in my part of Leicestershire.
    The debate has been strange, not least for the remarks of the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), with whom, to some extent, I agree. I do not take the apoplectic view that to have a Secretary of State for Health who happens to represent

    273
    a Scottish constituency is something to be ashamed of or worried about, any more than I complained, when the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley was Under-Secretary at the Department for International Development, that he did not represent overseas. Such arguments can be put on one side. I am more concerned about whether the Secretary of State for Health and his Government's policies are any good. I suspect that they will not be.
    I am also concerned about the way in which the changes have come about and the consequences that they may have for us all. One has only to look at the way in which the Government amendment to the Opposition motion is phrased to see how parlous the state of affairs is. I compare that with the way in which the military campaign was planned and executed in southern Iraq by the British armed forces. While the reshuffle was going on, I was visiting the British armed forces in Iraq, and I got back at the weekend to find the mess that the Government had dished up on the Thursday.
    If the military campaign had been planned and executed in a fashion similar to the way in which the Government reshuffle was apparently planned and executed, the military mission would have been an unmitigated disaster. Thank goodness, it was not, for the obvious reason that the military planners had got their heads round the issues rather more carefully than the political planners at No. 10.
    One goes on to look at the exact wording of the amendment and one sees all the usual new Labour-speak, which is no more than drivel, and it is supposed to be a defence of the Government position. One looks at expressions such as
    "welcomes the Government's continuing drive to modernise the constitution … focused on improving the criminal justice system"
    and
    "consulting on establishing an independent Judicial Appointments Commission".
    [Interruption.] The intellectual rigour with which the matter was considered is reflected in the remarks and rather sad jeers of those who apparently represent the Government. If I had the time, I would continue with a clause-by-clause description of the lacklustre amendment.
    The problem with the Government is that they think that words such as "modernise", "focus" and "consult" are the answer to the issues that we face. On reading the amendment, one can smell the burning oil, the grinding gears and the binding brakes of the Government desperately trying to alter course, having been made such a fool of over the weekend.
    I do not think that the relevant Secretary of State is here at the moment.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: He has not been here at all.
    Mr. Garnier: No, poor dear.
    The position is made yet worse by the Secretary of State promising consultation, while anticipating the outcome by already reaching a conclusion that will not be the subject of consultation. He says that a judicial appointments commission is a good idea and one will
    274
    come into being. It may or may not be a good idea, but what is the point of the consultation if he has already reached a conclusion?
    Mr. Leslie: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?
    Mr. Garnier: I will not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have a chance to reply to the debate for 15 minutes; I have only about four minutes to get across a speech that could have taken half an hour, so he should consider himself lucky that I am confined to four minutes.
    As I was suggesting, the Secretary of State has already reached a conclusion irrespective of the consultation that he promised, so we see yet again that the expression, "Government consultation" is no more than an inelegant oxymoron.
    I suspect that the cheers from Government Members about the changes to the Lord Chancellor's office have nothing whatever to do with the constitutional good sense of the reforms, but everything to do with the personality of the previous Lord Chancellor. Probably from day one when the Government took office in 1997, the previous Lord Chancellor made a fool of himself through his inability to behave in a politically and diplomatically sensitive way. That is not his fault. He is a man of huge intellect and great legal experience and expertise, but he was wholly unsuited to the delicate role required of a Lord Chancellor.
    Keith Vaz: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The previous Lord Chancellor appointed the hon. and learned Gentleman as a silk—a Queen's counsel—so was his judgment wrong in that as well?
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair but a point of debate.
    Mr. Garnier: It is not even a fact; I was appointed a silk by Lord Mackay.
    All that lies behind the antagonism of Labour Back Benchers for the office of Lord Chancellor. I suspect that their complaint has more to do with the personality of the occupant of the Woolsack rather than the role itself. Subsequently, perfectly respectable arguments—on which the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) and my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack) touched in outline—have been deployed for adjusting the role of the Lord Chancellor within the constitution. I suspect that a problem has arisen not only because of the character of the last Lord Chancellor but because of how his Department has grown from being simply that of the so-called Speaker of the House of Lords, the head of the judiciary and the judicial representative within the Executive to take on additional responsibilities way beyond those imagined possible or sensible by previous Lord Chancellors. The Department's budget is now measured in billions rather than the tens of millions that it used to be. All those factors, which I wish that I had further time to develop, have informed the way in which this debate has come about.

    275
    The short point that time allows me to make is that I am afraid that this is a cack-handed piece of reshuffling. It has constitutional implications about which the Government appear to be utterly careless. I am afraid that they will reap the whirlwind, and all of us will be disadvantaged by the way in which this matter has been handled.
    4.1 pm
    Mrs. Jacqui Lait: In starting to sum up one of these debates, it is traditional to congratulate those who have taken part in it. In the current circumstances, I wonder whether the use of the word "traditional" is correct. We have had a debate that started by pointing out the farce of the Prime Minister's reorganisation but that has descended into tragedy.
    We started with the part-time shadow Secretary of State for Wales and shadow Leader of the House—[HON. MEMBERS: "Shadow?"] The confusion created by the Prime Minister's reshuffle is such that we are not sure whether or not he is a shadow. The part-time Leader of the House and part-time Secretary of State for Wales started by desperately running out of the Chamber to try to find a list of Ministers, which he has promised will be in the Library by the end of this debate. We look forward to getting it. He could not answer when we pointed out that today's Order Paper makes it clear that Government Departments clearly believe that the Scotland Office is a shadow of its former self. Furthermore, we are wondering to which press release from No. 10 the part-time Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Wales was referring when he was trying to explain what happened last Thursday and Friday.
    It is a great shame that the part-time Secretary of State for Transport and Secretary of State for Scotland has not been present for the debate at all—there were certainly circumstances to explain that, because we understand that he was at the Scottish Affairs Committee—but I am afraid that the said gentleman has added to the confusion about what happened last Thursday and Friday. As we understood it, the part-time Leader of the House said that the Scotland and Wales Offices would remain with the same staff and the same duties. Today, however, in the Scottish Affairs Committee, the part-time Secretary of State for Scotland said that there would be substantial changes in the staff in the Scotland Office, but that Ministers would talk to the staff first. He went on to say that the Scotland Office is to be a separate department within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. Nobody is any the wiser about the impact of all these changes.
    In welcoming the former full-time Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (Mrs. Liddell) to the debate—we send her our commiserations on her retirement to the Back Benches—I note that it may be a sadness to her to learn that Friends of Scotland has been rapidly passed over to the Scottish Executive on the ground that there is a clear duplication.
    Mr. James Gray: Is the confusion in the Government's mind not highlighted by the anecdote that the caretaker in Dover house went straight out of the front door last Thursday and unscrewed the sign
    276
    that said "Scotland Office"? He took it inside only to be told on Friday that he had done wrong and that he must put it back up again.
    Mrs. Lait: That is one of the many elements in this story.
    Mr. Eric Pickles: It is a screw-up.
    Mrs. Lait: I prefer the term "farce" to "screw-up". Farce has accompanied this botched reshuffle.
    Mr. Grieve: Is not another bizarre aspect of the reshuffle the fact that we were told at the time that the Department for Constitutional Affairs was set up that it would have some responsibility for driving forward the Government's radical agenda for reforming the criminal justice system even though that does not appear to be within the Department's immediate remit? The Home Secretary then said, "No, it won't have that responsibility. That's our job." However, the Government amendment to the motion commends the Department for Constitutional Affairs because it is
    "focused on improving the criminal justice system".
    Mrs. Lait: It will be interesting to see whether the part-time Lord Chancellor manages to win over the Home Secretary, but I suspect that the Home Secretary will win that battle.
    We wish the new Lord Chancellor well—particularly while he is wearing his wig and tights—for the next three years, or is it perhaps 18 months? Or, as the chairman of the Labour party said on the "Today" programme on Saturday, will there be consultation in time for a Bill to appear in this year's Queen's Speech? As my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) pointed out in his excellent contribution, there is concern about the reality of the Government's consultation. I hope very much that, at some point, we will have clarification as to how long the consultation will last.
    Perhaps this botched reshuffle resulted from the fact that, when the previous Lord Chancellor gave evidence to the Select Committee on the Lord Chancellor's Department, he said that the Lord Chancellor
    "does not want to be bullied by the Executive".
    Perhaps that is why he is now spending more time with his family. For the health of our democracy and our constitution, we need to know what the Government's proposals are in their consultation papers. Will we see more of Tony's cronies on the judicial appointments commission? Will the Minister tell us when the consultation papers will be published, who will be consulted and for how long?
    Mr. Tom Harris: Will the hon. Lady give way?
    Mrs. Lait: I am very conscious of time, so it must be a wee one.
    Mr. Harris: I am sure that the obsession of the hon. Lady and the Conservative party with this process is shared by dozens of people throughout the country. When it comes to the consultation on the future of the

    277
    Lord Chancellor and a possible supreme court, will she make a commitment to taking part? What will be the basis of her submission?
    Mrs. Lait: My right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said at the opening of the debate that we would, of course, take part in the consultation. Because we believe in consultation, there is absolutely no way that I can tell the hon. Gentleman what we will come up with.
    Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Is my hon. Friend aware that the part-time Leader of the House has apparently agreed with the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Secretary that, for the first time in decades, the post of Lord President of the Council should not be the prerogative of the Leader of the House, but should be vested with the Leader of the House of Lords? That happened without any consultation whatever with any Member of the House.
    Mr. Forth: Or with Her Majesty.
    Mrs. Lait: As my right hon. Friend says, that also took place without any consultation with Her Majesty. It is yet another example of the farce that this reshuffle has descended into.
    We need to ensure that Scottish and Welsh interests are not downgraded and diminished in this Parliament. It is a great shame that there is every evidence that the Government plan to do that.
    For example, a Wales Office report says that the full-time Secretary of State for Wales and his Under-Secretary sat on 20 Cabinet Committees—
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Don Touhig): Twenty-five.
    Mrs. Lait: The Minister corrects me. How will the part-time Leader of the House and the Minister find time to sit on 25 Committees? How will the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs be able to have serious input on what the Scotland Office does? First we heard that the Scotland Office would be abolished but it now appears that that will not happen. We still do not know its exact status, which was shown by the Committee's confusion.
    Who will be the boss of whom? Who will be the senior part-timer? Will it be Lord Falconer wearing his Lord Chancellor's wig and managing his Department? Will it be the Leader of the House and Secretary of State for Wales, or the Transport Secretary and Secretary of State for Scotland? I imagine that there will be interesting debates around the Cabinet table.
    Hon. Members are left utterly bewildered about how Scottish and Welsh business will be handled. What is the future for questions? Is there a future for the Scottish and Welsh Affairs Committees? Will the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees remain?
    Peter Hain: Yes.
    Mrs. Lait: I am delighted to hear that, but what is the point of that if—according to one announcement—the Scotland and Wales Offices are to be abolished?
    278
    Who will be in charge of handling the boundary review in Scotland? We must bear it in mind that the boundary commission is abolishing the Secretary of State for Scotland's seat. Will there be a conflict of interest? Will the Secretary of State leave the boundary changes to be handled by his hapless junior Minister or will the unelected Lord Falconer make the decisions?
    Mr. Peter Duncan: I have something hot off the press that might clarify the status of the Minister who might well be responsible for implementing the boundary changes—we hope that that will happen. The Minister is described as
    "Mrs Anne McGuire MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Constitutional Affairs"
    on the Order Paper, but the now released list of departmental responsibilities describes her as the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Scotland Office.
    Mrs. Lait: We have clarification on titles but whether we have clarification on jobs is another matter. Will that Minister make decisions on the boundary commission?
    What will we do when the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is wearing his part-time transport hat? He took two of the top four questions on Scottish issues during Transport questions today. He denied debating with himself in the shaving mirror about his answers this morning. Perhaps civil servants from the Scotland Office sat on one side during his briefing on questions while officials from the Department for Transport sat on the other side. I hope that they did not come to blows. His answers this morning sadly gave the impression that he did not understand his Scottish responsibilities.
    Important decisions on air transport are being made. When the Secretary of State made a decision on the west coast main line, was he wearing his Scotland hat or his transport hat? When he reaches decision time on air travel, will he debate with himself the merits of the Scottish case or the case for the United Kingdom and, more importantly, which side will win that debate? How will he decide on the merits of the redevelopment of Waverley station? The station is currently in his constituency but his constituency will disappear.
    How can a part-time Transport Secretary with an add-on Scottish remit best serve Scotland's needs? It was implied earlier that 200 per cent. of his time would be spent on Scotland and transport, but 200 per cent. of 24 hours does not leave an awful lot of time for his family. I hope that he will be able to spend a significant amount of time with his family.
    We need to introduce significant and robust conflict-resolution mechanisms in the Scotland Act 1998. Fault lines in the devolution settlement are being widened, so we need robust and strong mechanisms to resolve the problems that will inevitably arise. I worry about what we heard today and what has been expressed in statements over the past five days. No doubt on the sixth day the Prime Minister will tell us that all is well. I hope that we resolve the problems and get this tragedy out of the way so that we can debate the substance of the Government's proposed changes.
    4.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): While the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) rouses himself to react to the speech of the hon. Member for Beckenham (Mrs. Lait), it occurs to me that the hon. Lady must be gutted by her performance. She was truly confused and ran out of steam, largely because the Conservatives have no policy on reforming the constitution and improving the way in which we run affairs in this country. Interestingly, their only Member of Parliament with a Scottish constituency, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), decided to make a brief intervention. I think that he has a strong claim in the imminent Conservative reshuffle to the post of shadow Scottish Secretary. We shall have to see whether his astute intervention will do the job.
    Although the middle of the debate was relatively well tempered, we heard a typically process-obsessed, navel-gazing contribution from the Conservatives, who have opposed every measure for change, every advance towards devolution and every move towards a modern and relevant Parliament and Government. Any change gives them scope to feign shock and horror, but beneath their phoney concern lies the opportunism and bandwagon-leaping mindset that led them to defeat so many times and will do so again.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: In the hon. Gentleman's endeavour to clear up confusion, will he clarify one thing? The part-time Leader of the House said that the Scotland Office and the Wales Office remain with exactly the same staff and exactly the same duties. The part-time Secretary of State for Scotland said Upstairs that the Government will obviously make changes, but that they will have to speak to staff first. Which is it? It is the Government's confusion: sort it out.
    Mr. Leslie: I take back what I said about the hon. Gentleman. I now do not think that he has any chance of becoming shadow Secretary of State for Scotland. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] Well, read my lips, as someone once famously said: the Scotland Office exists, the Wales Office exists and the relevant Secretaries of State hold their civil servants accountable for what they do. What is the Conservative party's attitude to that? Forget about doing the right thing: it opposes for the sake of a press release.
    While the Conservatives are obsessed with process, the Government will get on with substantial modernisation. The changes are right and straightforward. I am pleased to have the opportunity to debate our continuing drive to modernise the constitution and public services by creating a new Department for Constitutional Affairs, to which I am extremely pleased to have been appointed. The new Department, with a new Secretary of State, will be able to focus more effectively on making the courts work on behalf of the public.
    Keith Vaz: I congratulate my hon. Friend on his appointment to his new Department. In strongly welcoming the appointment of Lord Falconer to his new post, which I believe he will do admirably well, will my hon. Friend confirm, because we are talking about
    280
    extremely important constitutional changes, that there will be the widest possible consultation among the professions and the judiciary before any decision is made on a judicial appointments commission?
    Mr. Leslie: I unreservedly welcome my hon. Friend's contribution. He is right. There will be the widest possible consultation. The hon. Member for Beckenham asked about consultation documents, which we will issue before the summer. Many hon. Members will wish to contribute. We want to make the system work better, but we want to make it work better for a purpose. We must have a more representative, more outward-looking court system. That is important.
    I should like to make a few comments about some of the points that have been made, with specific reference to Scottish and Welsh Cabinet Ministers. We are putting in place better arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business after the successful bedding-down of devolution, which naturally leads to an adjustment of the scale of the jobs of Scottish and Welsh Secretaries. My hon. Friend the Member for Ogmore (Huw IrrancaDavies), in his excellent speech, highlighted that matter, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) in his inimitable way. There is continued accountability of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to the House, and they will also undertake other UK functions, undertaking all necessary policy and business matters in the same manner as previously. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude) for his measured contribution. He said that there is no constitutional impropriety, and nothing that is morally reprehensible, which, coming from the Conservative party, is a useful comment.
    As for the Scotland and Wales Offices, my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the Father of the House, and the right hon. Member for Horsham asked specific questions about the organisation of the civil service. They wanted to know for whom civil servants will work if they serve Scottish and Welsh Ministers. There is a significant change, as the Scotland and Wales Offices will now come under the umbrella of the Department for Constitutional Affairs. They will have one permanent secretary, and pay and appointment arrangements will be streamlined, stable and simplified. My hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow specifically asked to whom those civil servants were accountable. The answer is that they are accountable to the Welsh and Scottish Secretaries. There are many precedents for that. For example, we have had a Minister for Women in the Department of Trade and Industry, yet staff serving that Minister are based in the women's unit in the Cabinet Office. There is therefore ample precedent for such accountability.
    Mr. Bacon: In the light of what the Minister said about the permanent secretary, will he clarify whether there is now only one accounting officer, and whether the old Scotland and Wales Offices no longer have accounting officers? Is that the case or not?
    Mr. Leslie: Sir Hayden Phillips, the permanent secretary for the Department for Constitutional Affairs, will be the accounting officer; I hope that is clear.

    281
    Major reforms are needed to secure the correct separation of powers between the Executive and the legislature on the one hand and the judiciary on the other.
    Mr. Grieve rose—
    Mr. Leslie: A transparently independent judiciary is widely accepted as a laudable aim, even, I suspect, by the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). We have announced that we will consult on an independent judicial appointments commission for England and Wales, and I am glad that the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) welcomed that. Eventually, we intend to take the selection process for judges out of the hands of politicians, which will reinforce judicial independence. Scotland already has such a commission, and Northern Ireland is about to have one established.
    Mrs. Lait rose—
    Mr. Leslie: As the hon. Lady is so persistent, I shall give way to her.
    Mrs. Lait: Can the hon. Gentleman tell me whether the Scotland and Wales Offices will continue to issue separate departmental reports.
    Hon. Members: Oh, a big issue.
    Mr. Leslie: To discuss that issue, the Opposition cancelled an Opposition debate on education. I wonder whether members of the public watching our debate will realise that the prospects for a future Conservative Administration hang on the issuing of departmental reports—[Interruption.]I look forward to the next Conservative manifesto.
    I want to talk about the supreme court, because it is extremely important. We will consult on the establishment of a supreme court, rather than having the second Chamber of Parliament as the highest court in the land. Our proposals will take the Lord Chancellor, a politician, out of the final Court of Appeal, and establish a supreme court of appeal separate from the legislature. That move has received wide support. However, the Conservative party is clearly struggling over whether it supports or opposes it, either in principle or in general.
    Several hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Leslie: I wonder whether the Conservative party has an official view on the idea of—
    Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it would help good order in the House if he indicated whether or not he is willing to give way, so that we do not have several hon. Members on their feet at the same time.
    Mr. Leslie: I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and shall give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen).
    Mr. Allen: I hope that my hon. Friend takes seriously the important points made by the Opposition. I am
    282
    waiting for the question about whether the tea trolley in the Wales Office goes round at 11.20 or 11.25 am. I hope that my hon. Friend has the answer, not least because we dropped a debate on student fees to hear it. Will he return to the trivia of the debate and do something that our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House failed to do today—get an answer from the Opposition on whether they are in favour of a supreme court and a judicial appointments commission, and, if they are not, whether they will abolish them, should they ever come to power again?
    Mr. Leslie: It is rare for the Opposition to clarify their views on such matters in Opposition day debates. No doubt we will have myriad written parliamentary questions from the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) about tea trolley issues, and I am sure that in due course Hansard will be full of answers to those. [Interruption.] I am assured by the Under-Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), that the Wales Office has no tea trolley. I am happy to pass on that assurance to the House.
    Mr. Grieve rose—
    Mr. Leslie: I shall not give way for the moment because in the short time that I have left, I want to speak about the role of the Lord Chancellor in Parliament.
    David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
    Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
    Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
    The House divided: Ayes 183, Noes 327.

    Division No. 239]

    [4:25 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Calton, Mrs Patsy

    Allan, Richard

    Cameron, David

    Amess, David

    Carmichael, Alistair

    Arbuthnot, rh James

    Cash, William

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Bacon, Richard

    Baker, Norman

    Chidgey, David

    Barker, Gregory

    Chope, Christopher

    Baron, John (Billericay)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Barrett, John

    Collins, Tim

    Bercow, John

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Cotter, Brian

    Blunt, Crispin

    Cran, James (Beverley)

    Boswell, Tim

    Curry, rh David

    Brady, Graham

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

    Brazier, Julian

    Breed, Colin

    Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

    Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Djanogly, Jonathan

    Bruce, Malcolm

    Dodds, Nigel

    Burnett, John

    Dorrell, rh Stephen

    Burns, Simon

    Doughty, Sue

    Burnside, David

    Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

    Burstow, Paul

    Evans, Nigel

    Burt, Alistair

    Ewing, Annabelle

    Butterfill, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Fallon, Michael

    283

    Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

    Paice, James

    Paisley, Rev. Ian

    Flight, Howard

    Paterson, Owen

    Flook, Adrian

    Pickles, Eric

    Forth, rh Eric

    Portillo, rh Michael

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

    Fox, Dr. Liam

    Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

    Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

    Garnier, Edward

    Pugh, Dr. John

    George, Andrew (St. Ives)

    Randall, John

    Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

    Redwood, rh John

    Gidley, Sandra

    Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

    Goodman, Paul

    Rendel, David

    Gray, James (N Wilts)

    Robathan, Andrew

    Grayling, Chris

    Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

    Green, Damian (Ashford)

    Rosindell, Andrew

    Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

    Ruffley, David

    Greenway, John

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Salmond, Alex

    Gummer, rh John

    Sanders, Adrian

    Hammond, Philip

    Selous, Andrew

    Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

    Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

    Shepherd, Richard

    Harvey, Nick

    Simmonds, Mark

    Hawkins, Nick

    Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

    Hayes, John (S Holland)

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

    Heald, Oliver

    Heath, David

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Hendry, Charles

    Spring, Richard

    Hermon, Lady

    Stanley, rh Sir John

    Hoban, Mark (Fareham)

    Steen, Anthony

    Hogg, rh Douglas

    Streeter, Gary

    Holmes, Paul

    Stunell, Andrew

    Horam, John (Orpington)

    Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Syms, Robert

    Hunter, Andrew

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Jack, rh Michael

    Tavlor' John (Solihull)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Taylor' Matthew (Truro)

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Taylor, Dr Richard (Wyre F)

    Key, Robert (Salisbury)

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

    Thurso, John

    Laing, Mrs Eleanor

    Tonga Dr Jenny

    Lait. Mrs Jacqui

    Trimble, rh David

    Lamb, Norman

    Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

    Laws, David (Yeovil)

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Leigh, Edward

    Viggers, Peter

    Letwin, rh Oliver

    Walter, Robert

    Lewis Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

    Waterson, Nigel

    Liddell-Grainger, Ian

    Watkinson, Angela

    Lilley, rh Peter

    Webb, Steve (Northavon)

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Weir, Michael

    Loughton, Tim

    Whittingdale, John

    Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

    Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Wiggin, Bill

    Maclean, rh David

    Willetts, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Williams, Roger (Brecon)

    Maples, John

    Willis, Phil

    Maude, rh Francis

    Wilshire, David

    Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

    Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Mercer, Patrick

    Wishart, Pete

    Moss, Malcolm

    Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

    Murrison, Dr. Andrew

    Young, rh Sir George

    Norman, Archie

    Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

    Ottaway, Richard

    Mr. Mark Francois

    NOES

    Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

    Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

    Ainger, Nick

    Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

    Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

    Allen, Graham

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    284

    Austin, John

    Dean, Mrs Janet

    Baird, Vera

    Denham, rh John

    Banks, Tony

    Dhanda, Parmjit

    Barron, rh Kevin

    Dismore, Andrew

    Battle, John

    Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Dobson, rh Frank

    Beard, Nigel

    Donohoe, Brian H.

    Begg, Miss Anne

    Doran, Frank

    Bell, Stuart

    Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

    Benn, Hilary

    Drew, David (Stroud)

    Bennett, Andrew

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Benton, Joe (Bootle)

    Eagle, Maria (L 'pool Garston)

    Berry, Roger

    Edwards, Huw

    Best, Harold

    Efford, clive

    Belts, Clive

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Blackman, Liz

    Ennis Jeff (Barnsley E)

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Farrelly, Paul

    Blizzard, Bob

    Fisher Mark

    Blunkett, rh David

    Filzpatrick, Jim

    Borrow, David

    Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Flint, Caroline

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

    Brennan, Kevin

    Follett, Barbara

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Foster, rh Derek

    Browne Desmond

    Foster, Michael (Worcester)

    Bryant, Chris

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

    Burden, Richard

    Burnham, Andy

    Foulkes, rh George

    Byers, rh Stephen

    Francis. Dr. Hywel

    Cable, Dr. Vincent

    Gapes, Mike (Ilford S)

    Cairns, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Glbson, Dr. Ian

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gilroy, Linda

    Caplin, Ivor

    Godsiff, Roger

    Casale, Roger

    Goggins, Paul

    Caton, Martin

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    Challen Colin

    Hain, rn Peter

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    Chaytor, David

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clapham, Michael

    Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

    Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Hanson, David

    Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

    Harman, rh Ms Harriet

    Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

    Clelland, David

    Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

    Healey, John

    Coaker, Vernon

    Hendrick, Mark

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cohen, Harry

    Heppell, John

    Coleman, Iain

    Hesford, Stephen

    Connarty, Michael

    Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Heyes, David

    Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

    Hill, Keith (Streatham)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Hinchliffe, David

    Corston, Jean

    Hodge, Margaret

    Cousins, Jim

    Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

    Cranston, Ross

    Hope, Phil (Corby)

    Crausby, David

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cruddas, Jon

    Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

    Cummings, John

    Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

    Howells, Dr. Kim

    Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

    Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

    Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Darling, rh Alistair

    Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Hutton, rh John

    David, Wayne

    Iddon, Dr. Brian

    Davidson, Ian

    Illsley, Eric

    Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

    Ingram, rh Adam

    Dawson, Hilton

    Irranca-Davies, Huw

    285

    Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

    Merron, Gillian

    Michael, rh Alun

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Miliband, David

    Jamieson, David

    Miller, Andrew

    Jenkins, Brian

    Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

    Moffatt, Laura

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Moonie, Dr. Lewis

    Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

    Moran, Margaret

    Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Morgan, Julie

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Morley, Elliot

    Jowell, rh Tessa

    Morris, rh Estelle

    Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

    Mountford, Kali

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Mudie, George

    Keen, Alan (Feltham)

    Mullin, Chris

    Keen, Ann (Brentford)

    Munn, Ms Meg

    Kemp, Fraser

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Khabra, Piara S.

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Kidney, David

    Naysmith, Dr. Doug

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

    King, Andy (Rugby)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Kumar, Dr. Ashok

    O'Hara, Edward

    Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

    Olner, Bill

    Lammy, David

    O'Neill, Martin

    Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

    Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

    Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

    Owen, Albert

    Lazarowicz, Mark

    Palmer, Dr. Nick

    Lepper, David

    Perham, Linda

    Leslie, Christopher

    Picking, Anne

    Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Pike, Peter (Burnley)

    Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

    Plaskitt, James

    Linton, Martin

    Pollard, Kerry

    Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

    Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

    Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

    Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    McCabe, Stephen

    Prescott, rh John

    McCafferty, Chris

    Primarolo, rh Dawn

    McCartney, rh Ian

    Prosser, Gwyn

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Purchase, Ken

    MacDonald, Calum

    Purnell, James

    MacDougall, John

    Quin, rh Joyce

    McFall, John

    Quinn, Lawrie

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Rammell, Bill

    McIsaac, Shona

    Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

    McKechin, Ann

    Raynsford, rh Nick

    McKenna, Rosemary

    Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

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

    McNamara, Kevin

    McNulty, Tony

    Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

    MacShane, Denis

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

    McWalter, Tony

    Mahmood, Khalid

    Rooney, Terry

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

    Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

    Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

    Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Ruane, Chris

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Martlew, Eric

    Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

    286

    Salter, Martin

    Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Trickett, Jon

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Truswell, Paul

    Sawford, Phil

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Sheerman, Barry

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Sheridan, Jim

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

    Singh, Marsha

    Vis, Dr. Rudi

    Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

    Ward, Claire

    Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wareing, Robert N.

    Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Watts, David

    Soley, Clive

    White, Brian

    Southworth, Helen

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Spellar, rh John

    Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

    Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

    Williams, Betty (Conwy)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Wills, Michael

    Stevenson, George

    Winnick, David

    Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Woodward, Shaun

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Woolas, Phil

    Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

    Worthington, Tony

    Stringer, Graham

    Wright, Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Wright, David (Telford)

    Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

    Wright, Tony (Cannock)

    Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Thomas, Gareth (Harrow W)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Tipping, Paddy

    Derek, Twigg and

    Todd. Mark (S Derbyshire)

    Paul Clark

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
    MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
    Resolved,
    That this House welcomes the Government's continuing drive to modernise the constitution and public service by creating a new Department for Constitutional Affairs focused on improving the criminal justice system, by consulting on establishing an independent Judicial Appointments Commission, by consulting on establishing a Supreme Court, and by consulting the House of Lords on the appointment by the House of its own Speaker, and putting in place better arrangements for the conduct of Scottish and Welsh business after the successful bedding-down of devolution; further welcomes the continued accountability of the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales to the House; further welcomes the appointment of the new Secretary of State for Health who will continue the drive to reform and modernise the National Health Service; and supports the Government in its continued commitment to invest and reform the public services.

Community Pharmacies
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): We now come to the debate on community pharmacies. I should inform the House that Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.
4.41 pm
Mr. Tim Yeo: I beg to move,
That this House believes community pharmacies play a vital role in providing for local healthcare needs, with highly qualified pharmacists able to advise on general and over-the-counter medicines and to dispense and to advise on prescription-only medicines; notes that community pharmacies are truly local, with nine out of ten people considering it easy to get to a community pharmacy; and is concerned about any change which might lead to a reduction in the excellent services or accessibility currently provided by community pharmacies.
I hoped that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry would be in her place. Is she on her way here?
The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): Yes.
Mr. Yeo: Good. I shall not make my remarks about her until she arrives. [Interruption.] I welcome the Secretary of State to the Chamber. I begin by offering you my commiserations because your hopes of promotion were not fulfilled.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I had none, and I got none. I believe that the hon. Gentleman intended to refer to the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Yeo: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I offer the Secretary of State my commiserations because her hopes of promotion were not fulfilled. It must be galling not to be considering pharmacies from the point of view of the newly appointed Secretary of State for Health—doubly so when one has been passed over in favour of a Scottish Member of Parliament who has no influence on health matters in Scotland, but whose talents, in the Prime Minister's eyes, are superior to those of every single English colleague.
The debate has two purposes. First, it gives hon. Members the chance to express their support for community pharmacies and warn against unnecessary or harmful changes to the current structure. Secondly, it enables hon. Members of all parties to show whether early-day motions have any meaning. The motion's wording is the same as that of early-day motion 815. The Opposition are doing the House a service by giving up half their day to allow hon. Members to debate a motion that, I suspect, the Government would prefer us not to consider or vote on.
By last night, early-day motion 815 had attracted approximately 200 signatures, of which 64 were those of Labour Members of Parliament. I hope that every hon. Member who signed it will vote in favour of the motion at the end of the debate. Last Wednesday, a worrying precedent was set when hon. Members debated early-day motion 572 on post offices and cash payments of benefit to recipients. More than 350 hon. Members from all parties supported the early-day motion. When the Division was called at the end of the debate, however, 128 Labour Members who had signed the early-day
288
motion voted against the motion. I am sure that my hon. Friends will agree that the stench of hypocrisy is overwhelming. Those 128 Labour Members had told their constituents that they supported the early-day motion, and had expressed their concern at the plight of post offices in their constituencies and at the difficulties that elderly and vulnerable benefit claimants will face in receiving cash.
Mr. Anthony Steen: Does not this show either that early-day motions are a total waste of time—which they probably are—or that Labour Members will just sign anything, and vote in any way, rather than in support of the views that they have expressed on the Order Paper?
Mr. Yeo: It certainly shows that early-day motions might be a total waste of time, so far as Labour Members are concerned. I believe, however, that every single Conservative Member who signed that early-day motion also voted in favour of it in the Division last Wednesday, just as every Member who has signed early-day motion 815 will vote with us in the Lobby tonight.
Mr. Keith Simpson: A possible explanation for what happened last week that my hon. Friend might not have thought of is that last week's debate took place just before the reshuffle. [Horn. MEMBERS: "Ah!"] If we were to be generous to Labour Members, we might say that many of them were driven by the hope that their talents might be recognised by the Prime Minister. Now that the reshuffle is over and those hopes—including those of the Secretary of State—have been brutally dashed, perhaps they will feel that their shackles have been removed. Perhaps they will now be willing to vote with the Opposition on this issue.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend advances an ingenious explanation for the absence of so many Labour MPs from the Division Lobby in support of early-day motion 572. When I tell him that they included the hon. Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for West Ham (Mr. Banks), and for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Kilfoyle), the Father of the House—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I ought to persuade the hon. Gentleman to deal with the motion before the House, rather than concentrating too much on last week's motion.
Mr. Yeo: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Norfolk (Mr. Simpson) will now have drawn his own conclusion as to the improbability of hope in certain breasts being the determining factor in the way in which those hon. Members cast their votes.
My concern is that the value of early-day motions is being undermined, that the integrity of Parliament has been threatened, and that some hon. Members are attempting to deceive their electorate. Tonight, however, we have a chance to put that right. Tonight's motion has the very same wording as early-day motion 815, which has the support of 64 Labour Back Benchers.

289
There are, therefore, 64 Labour Members who have the chance at least partially to restore the integrity of the Order Paper and the system of early-day motions.
Dr. Julian Lewis: Does my hon. Friend agree that the probable reason that so many Labour MPs have signed this early-day motion is that, like me, they have had upwards of 1,000 people either writing to them individually or signing petitions expressing their grave concern about the threat to community pharmacies? The 1,000 people in my constituency came from Hythe, Brockenhurst and Totton—just three locations—and there could have been many more, had similar petitions been organised elsewhere.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend's constituents are fortunate indeed in their parliamentary representative. He takes up their cause and champions it through his eloquence on the Floor of the House; he will also vote in favour of the motion tonight. We shall see, in the course of the next two hours and 10 minutes, whether the 64 Labour Members are willing to follow his fine example. I hope that they do, because, if they do, they might start to restore the integrity of the early-day motion process. If they fail to do so, the message will go out loud and clear that the signature of a Labour Member of Parliament on an early-day motion is not worth the paper that it is printed on.
Andy Burnham: Will the hon. Gentleman tell us precisely when the Conservative party ditched the philosophy that free, unregulated markets had all the answers?
Mr. Yeo: I shall come to the substance of the argument in a moment, and I shall deal with the hon. Gentleman's point with relish. It exposes the fact that, like the authors of the Office of Fair Trading report, he does not understand the difference between community pharmacies and the rest of the retail sector.
Mr. James Gray: There is a case in point in the Chamber today. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) was one of those who signed the early-day motion on post offices but then voted against last week's motion. I do not know whether he signed early-day motion 815 on pharmacies, but if he did I hope that he will vote with the Opposition this evening.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a telling point. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will make his position clear presently. I have a list of the 64 Members who signed the early-day motion, and I will welcome any interventions that they may choose to make.
We called this debate because the Government are about to publish their response to the OFT's report on pharmacy services. I hope that the Secretary of State will tell us what they think of the report. There is a contrast between the swift and decisive response in Scotland and Wales, where the OFT's recommendations have already been rejected, and the uncertainty caused by the lack of any decision by the Government here in London—uncertainty that is damaging to some community
290
pharmacists. It is also puzzling, in view of the large number of Members—again, in all parts of the House—who want the present structure to be broadly preserved, if the views that they have expressed by signing early-day motions can be relied on.
The key recommendation in the OFT report is that the control of entry regulations for community pharmacies should be ended. The Conservative party believes that accepting that recommendation would damage the existing network of community pharmacies, and would harm the interests of the communities that they serve. We question the need for changes in the present structure, and we are doubtful about the benefits that the advocates of change claim would result from ending the regulations.
The central flaw in the report, and the flaw in what was said by the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), is the failure to recognise clearly enough that community pharmacies are not just another part of the retail sector. They cannot be treated in the same way as retailers of food and other consumer products. Community pharmacists are qualified professionals with a specialised and important role to play in the delivery of primary health care.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Would my hon. Friend care to point out to the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham), who made that silly intervention, that it was a Conservative Government who established the 1987 regime in the first place?
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend's knowledge of the history behind the regulations is impressive. I am happy to tell him that I knew that as well.
There is an interesting point here, on which the Secretary of State may be able to shed some light in due course. The restrictions were introduced by the Conservative Government in 1987—or rather, I think, 1986—at the behest of the Treasury, which feared that the lack of any restrictions on entry to the pharmacy world was causing a haemorrhage of expenditure from the national health service budget.
I wonder whether one reason why the Government are taking their time to make up their mind about what they want to do is that on this issue, as on so many others, the Secretary of State is not her own master. Even had she received the promotion to the Department of Health for which she hoped, she would still not be her own master, because we all know that the dictator of domestic policy in this Government is the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He may well fear the financial consequences of this change, and that may well be why there has been silence so far on what the Government's policy is.
Mr. Humfrey Malins: In both the rural and the urban parts of my constituency, there is widespread concern among small independent pharmacists about the prospect of being knocked out of business by the giant supermarkets. Does my hon. Friend agree that the vulnerable will suffer rather than the rich? Will not the poor suffer, and the poorer communities in particular?
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend has anticipated much of what I was going to say, as I would have expected him to. He is absolutely right. Perhaps the only comfort for those who are running community pharmacies in his constituency, and for the vulnerable constituents who will indeed suffer, is the fact that they are represented by a Member who takes such a close interest in their concerns—and who also supports a party that now places at the centre of its agenda the need to help the vulnerable and ensure that no one is left behind. Of course, in view of the appalling muddle that pervades the whole of Government, that same party will soon be taking the decisions affecting my hon. Friend's constituents.
Peter Luff: But will my hon. Friend reinforce the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) in his fine intervention? It is not just a question of remote rural communities; those who live in urban areas may actually be the most threatened. I am thinking of communities such as that served by the fine community pharmacy of Badham's, in Bengeworth. If anything undermined the viability of that pharmacy, a relatively underprivileged community would not have the access to pharmacy services that it deserves.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to point out that this issue affects urban areas as much as rural ones. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but when I had the pleasure of visiting his constituency a couple of years ago, I think that he drew my attention to the merits of the pharmacy that he mentions and its crucial role in the local community.
Mr. Luff indicated assent.
Gregory Barker: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Yeo: In a moment; if I may, I should first like to make a little progress.
Perhaps it is time to touch on the substance of the OFT report itself, which acknowledges that the current system has a great many merits. Paragraph 1.15 confirms that four out of five people live less than two thirds of a mile away from a community pharmacy. The report in fact uses the phrase less than "500 metres", but my hon. Friends would be happier if I used other terminology. It also confirms that almost one person in two live within one third of a mile of a community pharmacy, so not surprisingly, nine out of 10 people consider it easy to get to a pharmacy from their home. Three out of four family doctors have a community pharmacy within easy walking distance, by which I mean less than a quarter of a mile away from where their practice premises are situated.
The message is clear: consumer satisfaction is high, a fact that my own constituency experience confirms. In two decades as a Member of Parliament—an anniversary that was completed last Monday—I have scarcely received a single complaint about the inaccessibility of community pharmacies. On the contrary: there is tremendous support for them in South Suffolk, as evidenced by the petition raised in support of the Moss pharmacy in Hadleigh, which was signed by
292
hundreds of my constituents. Such support was also evidenced in a letter that I received from Clare parish council, which states that
"our local pharmacy provides an invaluable service to our local community not only in providing prescriptions and other medical needs but also in the information and advice given by the pharmacist … if it was no longer viable for it to trade due to losing business to other providers our small town would be hugely affected. Not only would this outlet be a great loss to the elderly and young families especially but this would also have a knock on effect to other shops in the town as the pharmacy currently has many customers not only from Clare but from the several smaller villages surrounding it."
Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: In a moment.
A representative of the Clare Business Association wrote to the Department of Health earlier this year, saying:
"The town has a population of 2,200 but above all it serves a rural area including some small and large Villages …
Our Pharmacy is not just an outlet for medicines … the Chemist has like the Doctors become the family friend who they can trust confide in, and above all give a personal service.
Shopping at Supermarkets is one thing, exchanging your prescription is another …
Think of Families with small children, elderly people, those that don't drive …
Stop the Government's proposals to allow unrestricted opening of pharmacies."
Gregory Barker: Like many of my colleagues on the Conservative Benches, I have received petitions carrying hundreds of names of constituents who are concerned about pharmacies. In particular, the elderly in Bexhill are very worried about the possible consequent withdrawal of the prescription delivery service. They are particularly vulnerable because they often do not have access to the big out-of-town stores that could replace pharmacies.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes his point very powerfully. [Interruption.] I note the belated arrival of the Secretary of State for Health—the man whose merits are such that even though he is handicapped by being a Scottish Member of Parliament, he is considered superior to all the other would-be candidates for the post of Secretary of State who were lined up in Cabinet last week.
Hywel Williams: Returning to the issue of costs, although this Government may have been silent about it, the same cannot be said of Jane Hutt, the Welsh Assembly Minister, who said that
"the removal of these regulations could increase costs to the NHS in Wales resulting from the administration of alternative systems to protect access to pharmaceutical services under the NHS."
The Government have been silent, but the Labour party in Wales has given the game away.
Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. As the debate continues, interest in what the Secretary of State will say in her reply is growing every minute.

293
In my experience, any threat to community pharmacies provokes a positive outburst of support. In the past, concerns have been expressed occasionally—in my constituency and in others—when a family doctor practice seeks permission to become a dispensing practice. If the patients or customers of an existing community pharmacy believe that granting permission will damage their local community pharmacy, they readily say so in robust terms. In respect of today's debate on the Office of Fair Trading report, however, community pharmacies and dispensing practices are on the same side, sharing the same concerns about what might happen.
Roger Casale: Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including myself, who have received representations about community pharmacies are making representations to the Secretary of State. However, this is an Opposition day debate, which is usually used to attack Government policy. What we are debating now is not Government policy, but simply a recommendation of the Office of Fair Trading. When is the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) going to start debating Government policy on this matter?
Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Gentleman does not believe that it is Government policy, there is nothing to stop him voting with us later this evening. The fact remains that we do not know what Government policy on this matter is. We have scheduled the debate in a timely and opportune way to give the Secretary of State the chance to clear up the doubts and resolve the anxieties felt by many community pharmacies around the country.
Mrs. Angela Browning: Does my hon. Friend agree that today's Opposition day debate is timely, because the Secretary of State can hear who the stakeholders are and what a sense of community really means in real constituencies? The Labour party espouses the virtues of stakeholders, community, partnership and consultation, so the Secretary of State has an ideal opportunity to hear at first hand from those of us who have presented petitions and made representations exactly what the people want and value.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend makes a telling point.
Hansard cannot reflect the balance of attendance in the House, so now is the right moment to draw attention to the fact that, for the time being, the Conservative party has roughly 40 per cent. of the representation that the Government have in the House, but there are four or five times as many Conservative Members as Labour Members attending this debate, which is so important to every constituency represented in Parliament. [Interruption.] Furthermore, every intervention on the Conservative side has been from hon. Members speaking up for the interests of their constituents, but interventions on the Government side—somewhat few and far between—have consisted largely of cheap debating points.
Sir Paul Beresford: Does my hon. Friend agree that the debate provides an opportunity
294
for the Government to identify some of their blind spots? Rural issues are certainly one of their blind spots. Many villages have pharmacies, post offices, pubs and so forth, but the village pharmacies are being threatened.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. I recall visiting his constituency to take part in a conference, which I believe was entitled "Listening to Britain". He may recall that one of the main issues was the anxiety felt by many rural communities about the representation of community pharmacies in their areas. However, it was rightly mentioned earlier that the debate is not about rural communities alone. It certainly goes to the heart of the concerns of many rural communities, but it is equally a matter of concern in many urban areas.
Mr. Roger Gale: The point that my hon. Friend makes has been brought home to me this week, following the receipt of petitions with 2,500 signatures from Payden's and Baxter's and Ferris—not just from Margate in my constituency, but from Garlinge and Birchington, which are urban villages with the community pharmacies right at their core. Is not the Office of Fair Trading report simply about retailing, and nothing whatever to do with the health of people who use the health service?
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right. The trap into which so many people—including, I fear, the authors of the Office of Fair Trading report—have fallen is in failing to understand the difference between the general retail industry and the role played by pharmacies.
Richard Ottaway: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Government White Paper entitled "Pharmacy in the Future" says in the foreword:
"As one of the primary health professions in the NHS, pharmacy has a vital part to play in delivering the plan. Pharmacists are an integral part of most people's experience of NHS care, whether in the community or in hospitals."?
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is right to cite that White Paper, and today's debate will show which side of the House speaks up for the community and recognises all the elements that are necessary for a successful health service.
I could find nothing in the OFT report that suggested that deregulating the sector further would improve access to community pharmacies for that part of the population that uses those pharmacies regularly. Indeed, the fear is that the opposite would be the case. If community pharmacies migrate away from high streets and disappear inside supermarkets, the likelihood is that access will become harder, not easier. As Philip Graham, the owner of two independent community pharmacies in my constituency, in Long Melford and Lavenham, wrote to me in April:
"The customers who use and need pharmacy services are not those naturally targeted by the grocers, or who are traditional users of those outlets."
Four out of five people over the age of 75 take at least one prescription-based medicine. The main users of pharmacy services are the elderly, as well as the infirm and the socially disadvantaged. Those are the very people about whom the Conservative party is

295
concerned. They tend to be the less mobile, and so the convenience that supermarkets do indeed offer many people is not a convenience at all for many pharmacy customers. The flaw in the OFT report is that it considers those people only as consumers, not as patients. A community pharmacy is not a village store or a high-street grocer.
Mr. Keith Simpson: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, as the pharmacist in the market town of Reepham in my constituency pointed out, many rural and urban pharmacies are part of a strong support system for our general practices. They are already under enormous strain. If community pharmacies are removed, it will have a knock-on effect on GPs. My constituency already suffers from a grave shortage of GPs thanks to the Government's policies, which the Secretary of State for Scotland—I am sorry, I mean the Secretary of State for Health—will be able to address.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend anticipates a point that I intended to make. He is right about the complementary role that community pharmacies play in the delivery of primary health care. In defence of the new Secretary of State for Health, let me say that he is one of the diminishing number of Cabinet Ministers who has only one job to do. He is not a part-timer. Nor is he moonlighting—something of which the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) often accuses Conservative Members. Let us hope that with the attention that the Secretary of State for Health is able to give the job he will address the shortage of doctors in my hon. Friend's constituency.
Community pharmacies do not compete in the way that supermarkets do—on he basis of price. Indeed, in the case of prescription medicines, which account for the vast bulk of medicines sold in pharmacies, there is no price competition from the point of view of the consumer. What is traditionally the strongest single argument in favour of a more deregulated market—the downward pressure on consumer prices that a deregulated market can exert—simply does not apply to community pharmacies. Even the price of the over-the-counter medicines, which account for about a fifth of the medicines sold by community pharmacies, is likely—in the opinion of the OFT—to fall by only between 1 per cent. and 2 per cent. That is a marginal gain to set against the real disadvantages that Conservative Members have set out.
Surprisingly, the OFT report does not convincingly explain how the present regulations constitute such an insuperable barrier to entry into the market by supermarkets. On the contrary, the report confirms that since 1990—during which time the existing restrictions have been in force—no fewer than 450 new supermarket pharmacies have opened. They now constitute about 4 per cent. of the total network.
One argument that the OFT deploys in favour of more supermarket pharmacies is that they would have longer opening hours. Clearly, there is evidence to support that. Does the Secretary of State for Health want to say something? I should be happy to give way. Does he wish to intervene? No, he has nothing to say. I am glad that he is listening.
There is evidence to support the claim about longer opening hours, but the report presents no evidence that they are a priority for users of community pharmacies.
296
The clear priority for them, especially for the people who are most vulnerable, is that the quality of service currently offered by community pharmacies should be maintained. There is great anxiety about the possible consequences of accepting the OFT recommendation.
The British Medical Association has stated that
"what little gain it may provide to the consumer in terms of cheaper medicines is insufficient to offset what may be lost. The most vulnerable and the least affluent members of society—the elderly, infirm and housebound—will lose the most if community pharmacies are forced to close."
An interesting show of unanimity between the medical profession and part of the private sector backs that up. The Boots company has said:
"Accessibility to pharmacies would decline as provision moves out of town to supermarkets; and the closure of pharmacies would have a detrimental effect on the viability and vitality of town centres … there is no evidence that this will deliver significant or sustained price reductions across the range of"
over-the-counter
"medicines … The Government strategy for enhancing the role of the pharmacist and relieving pressure on the NHS will be disrupted, due to staff shortages, earnings dilution and market instability."
Mr. Steen: I think that I am right in saying that, if the Government accept the OFT report in full, primary legislation will be required. Is that correct? If so, that will give us a whole year in which to harass the Government about the unsuitability of their response to the report.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend presents the House with a mouth-watering prospect. Harassing the Government on this issue for a whole year would no doubt mean that the Secretary of State and I would have to joust many times across the Floor of the House. I am extremely attracted by that possibility, but we will have to seek advice from the Government about whether primary legislation would be needed.
Mr. Steen: It would.
Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend assures me that it would.
The truth is that a pharmacy is much more than a retailer of medicines. It is a source of advice for patients about health issues and the use of medicines. Not surprisingly, supermarkets rely more heavily on locum pharmacists. For that reason, the development of a relationship between patient and pharmacist is less likely to be achieved. In those circumstances, service could be less personal: only a third of supermarkets provide home-delivery services.
Caution should be our watchword before we rush in to accept the OFT recommendation, which will mainly benefit younger and more able-bodied people—the very categories for whom the services of a pharmacist are least likely to be needed. The Government amendment refers to
"the need for a balanced package of measures".
I hope that the Secretary of State will explain what that phrase means.
Roger Casale: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Yeo: The hon. Gentleman is too late.

297
The Government's close links with the big supermarkets are well known. Their reluctance to defend small post offices is a scandal. Their refusal to support village shops shows contempt for the needs of rural areas. Their refusal to introduce honesty in food labelling hurts British farmers. Their policy on genetically modified crops is concerned more with the demands of multinational companies than with the need to protect the environment.
Every one of those shabby climbdowns bodes ill for the decision that they must take in relation to the OFT report. I hope that, for once, principle rather than expediency will be the basis of the Government's approach. I hope that they will think of local communities before donations to party funds, and that they will at last put patients' interests first.
I commend the motion to the House.
5.14 pm
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
"agrees that the OFT report on the "Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK" provides a useful analysis of the market impact of the current control of entry regulations on consumers and competition and highlights the need for the present regime governing pharmacies to be updated; favours change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that community pharmacies play, especially in poorer areas; and supports the need for a balanced package of measures which plays to the strengths of community pharmacies and enhances the role of pharmacists in the modern NHS.".
First, I am delighted to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health on his appointment. I know, as do all Labour Members, that he will do an outstanding job. Likewise, I welcome the Minister of State. Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), to her new post.
I welcome, too, the belated recognition from the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that there are limits to markets, especially in health care. That is quite a conversion from the party that gave us the iniquities of the internal market. I welcome the concern expressed by the Opposition for the health of our communities—not something that we heard from the Conservatives when they were devastating our coalfield communities with their onslaught on the mining industry.
Mr. Greg Knight: Will the Secretary of State tell the House why she moved an amendment to our motion? Unusually, but not uniquely, the Opposition motion does not attack the Government; it is a statement in support of community pharmacies. Why cannot the Secretary of State accept the motion? What have community pharmacies to fear from her plans?
Ms Hewitt: We are improving on the Opposition motion. I have made plain, and will continue to do so, my support and the Government's support for community pharmacies. The amendment reflects the
298
approach that we will take, not merely as we consider the report from the Office of Fair Trading but, more important, as we implement the programme for pharmacies—the modernisation and strengthening of community pharmacies that the Department of Health has put forward.
Mr. Mark Todd: My right hon. Friend has indicated that this is an opportunity neither for conservativism or Conservativism, but a chance to work with pharmacists on an agenda for change; for example, by looking into the costs and inefficiencies of patient packs, a subject of great concern to many pharmacists.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. In a moment, I shall come to some of the many improvements that can be made to build on the work that community pharmacies are doing already.
In contrast to the rather aggressive attitude adopted by the hon. Member for South Suffolk, I hope that all of us, on both sides of the House, can agree on the vital role that community pharmacies play. We all use them; we all rely on their advice. They help people to lead healthier lives and to live longer. They play a vital role in our communities and are a lifeline, especially for our most elderly, frail and vulnerable citizens, and all of us—without the need to make partisan points—should support them.
Brian Cotter: I thank the Secretary of State for those words. May I offer an example of the importance of local pharmacies, which confirms that we are all concerned about these serious issues? Last year, Milton pharmacy in my constituency paid out £1,355 on taxi services to supply free delivery of prescriptions to old people and the very ill. I have a copy of the bill. The pharmacy provides an excellent service and I hope that the Secretary of State's awareness of that will help to inform her decisions.
Ms Hewitt: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's point and the way in which he made it. That example illustrates exactly the kind of service that should be much more widely offered. Home deliveries, especially for elderly or isolated patients, are exactly the sort of service that we want to develop.
Like the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members on both sides of the House, I, too, have met pharmacists from my constituency who are extremely concerned about the possible implications of the OFT report for their services and their businesses: for instance, Mr. Mattock, who runs a pharmacy just down the road from my constituency office, serving a diverse and disadvantaged ward in my constituency; and my constituent, Mr. Mehta, who is a pharmacist in a Leicestershire village. Both of them are wholly committed to serving their patients and their communities, and of course both of them brought me petitions like those received by almost every Member.
I want to make it clear to our community pharmacists that we value their contribution. We value their role as trained clinicians. Above all, we understand the contribution that they make to deprived and remote communities.

299
We will do nothing that jeopardises that contribution. Indeed, as the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) made plain in his excellent quotation, we spelt out in the Department of Health document, "Pharmacy in the Future", that we want to increase and enhance the contribution that pharmacists make as clinicians and professionals in the national health service.
Mr. Steen: The Secretary of State says that she wants to improve local pharmacists' facilities, but does she plan to increase the £18,000 a year that the Government pay for the NHS contract to each pharmacy? Will that sum increase? If it does, pharmacists will be delighted, but they will not be so pleased if she gets rid of it.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health is discussing with pharmacists a new contract and funding through primary care trusts to ensure that they can innovate and that pharmacy services are responsive to the local needs of their community, because the needs of rural communities will be very different from those of deprived inner-city areas. As "Pharmacy in the Future" says, pharmacy is one of the primary health professions in the NHS; it is an integral part of most people's experience of NHS care, whether in the community or in hospital. It was very clear from the responses that the Department of Health received to that document that the public believe that more use could and should be made of pharmacists' skills and expertise.
Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend has hit exactly the right note. When I met my local pharmacists to discuss their concerns about the OFT report, they said that they very much welcomed the Government's proactive agenda, but they also want to take a very much more active role in respect of prescriptions. They argue that millions of pounds could be saved with a different prescription policy, particularly in relation to repeat prescriptions. We should be following that up, rather than having a sterile debate on whether pharmacies should continue regardless.
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. He makes the very important point that the public and pharmacists are telling us that much more could be done to use pharmacists' skills and expertise to deliver better health care to patients. Only the Conservative party says that nothing should change—typical of Conservative Members. The programme for pharmacies sets out exactly how we will continue to improve pharmacy services. We need to ensure that they can meet patients' changing needs, ensuring that people can get the medicines and pharmaceutical advice that they need easily and, wherever possible, in the way and at the time and place that they choose.
We have heard very little about patient and consumer choice from the Opposition. That is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health is taking steps to ensure that patients can obtain more medicines over the counter from pharmacies. We want patients to be able to get their medicines out of hours, when that is what they need. We want more patients to be able to receive delivery of their medicine at home. We want
300
pharmacists to be responsible for far more repeat prescriptions, as that will make life simpler for patients and doctors.
Mr. Mark Francois: It has already been mentioned several times in the debate today that pharmacists play a very important role, not least in releasing pressure on already hard-pressed general practitioners. My constituency has the fourth highest ratio of patients to GPs in the entire country. Does the Secretary of State appreciate that this is an extremely important point? Has that got through to the Department of Trade and Industry, as well as to the Department of Health, where it was appreciated to begin with?
Ms Hewitt: Yes, of course we are aware of that important point and, through the Department of Health's programme for pharmacies, we will also ensure that pharmacists give patients much greater support and advice on using medicines. We need to reduce the amount of illness caused by medicines not being used correctly, and we certainly need to cut the amount of medicines that are simply wasted because patients do not begin or, more commonly, do not complete their courses. All of that will mean better care for our patients and a greater role, not a lesser one, for community pharmacists.
Mr. Gale: Does not the right hon. Lady understand that the Opposition agree with much of what she is saying? The problem is that what she is saying is not compatible with shipping out pharmacies to out-of-town supermarkets and putting community pharmacies out of business, thereby denying access to local outlets that will provide precisely the back-up, advice and service to the vulnerable, the elderly and young mothers with children that she seems to be talking about.
Ms Hewitt: I think that the hon. Gentleman is tilting at windmills. I hope that by the time I have finished my speech, I will have persuaded him to vote for our amendment. He should not be hostile to the development of pharmaceutical services in supermarkets, all of which are approved by primary care trusts when that is appropriate. I recently visited friends in a village in Suffolk where there have been no shops of any kind for many years. The local supermarket has recently opened an excellent pharmacy service complete with a treatment room and qualified pharmacist within the supermarket. For the people living in that village and others around it, that would be the nearest community pharmacy. He should therefore drop his prejudices and look at the situation on the ground.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Let right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hewitt: Let me make a little more progress.
Against that background of our programme for pharmacies and our commitment to pharmacists, we are considering the report from the Office of Fair Trading. I welcome that report, which is a useful contribution to public debate and understanding. The hon. Gentleman referred to the history of the control of entry regulations

301
which, of course, date back to 1987. What he did not know, however, or forgot to mention, is that the situation in 1987 was very different: in those days, payments to pharmacists were being made on a cost-plus basis, with higher payment being made to the smaller pharmacies for each prescription dispensed than to larger ones. The result, not surprisingly, was to encourage more and more pharmacies to open up that were almost entirely dependent on NHS funding and prescriptions. That is why NHS costs kept rising, which is why the Treasury, in 1987, rightly insisted on changes being made. The control of entry regulations gave local health authorities the responsibility of deciding whether new pharmacies were needed, and in doing so dealt with the problem of the perverse incentive, which was driving up costs unnecessarily.
Since then, the cost-plus remuneration system has given way to a reformed payment and reimbursement system. As I indicated a few moments ago, the Department of Health is now negotiating a new pharmacy contract, which will come into effect next year, and will provide new opportunities, particularly for the primary care trusts, to introduce services such as minor ailment clinics, repeat dispensing, supplementary prescribing, home delivery services and some others on which we have touched.
John Mann: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the situation in my constituency, which has prevailed for 20 years, is absurd? On a Sunday evening, if someone requires a repeat prescription ventalin inhaler the only way to get it is by going to accident and emergency or calling out a GP. Does she think that that needs attention in the review?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend makes an important point. The issue of out-of-hours dispensing is one of those being considered in the Department of Health, with pharmacists, to ensure that as part of the new pharmacy contract and the new arrangements with PCTs, we deliver better services to consumers and patients who often need those services 24/7, 365 days a year, and not simply at times when pharmacies are usually open.
Mr. Todd: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be worth while for the contract negotiations also to focus on some of the rather perverse incentives in the current contract, including the fact that any gain that is made by more efficient purchasing is effectively clawed back by the Government in a subsequent year? That is an intensely frustrating and unpredictable process for many pharmacists.
Ms Hewitt: That is an extremely important point, and I am sure that the Minister of State, Department of Health will take note of it. She may wish to comment on it when she winds up.
The role of the OFT is to promote competition and consumer choice. Just as none of us in the House should have any doubt about the importance of community pharmacies, so none of us should be in any doubt about the importance of competition and consumer choice to our wider economic success. When the Conservative
302
party was in power, it talked about competition, but it has taken this Labour Government to modernise a competition regime that was increasingly inadequate and left us trailing behind other economies. With Labour's Competition Act 1998 and Enterprise Act 2002, we can be proud of giving our country a competition regime that is now among the best in the world.
Greater competition has already brought benefits to all of us who buy over-the-counter medicines. When, in 2001, the OFT used the new powers that we had given it under the 1998 Act to challenge the old system of retail price maintenance, prices of leading branded over-the-counter medicines fell by up by 50 per cent.—in some cases within a couple of hours of the OFT announcing the opening of its inquiry. That was good news for patients and consumers. I would have hoped that Conservative Members would welcome it. Above all, it was good news for low-income families and low-income elderly people.
I have no doubt about the contribution that the OFT can make to our deliberations on how we improve consumer choice. I welcome the fact that, as a result of our reforms, it can look specifically at the impact of the Government regulations that may be holding back consumer choice and competition.
Mr. Andrew Lansley rose—
Ms Hewitt: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, because I am sure that he will want to welcome those reforms.
Mr. Lansley: The Secretary of State anticipates my question, and I am grateful to her for that. She is responsible for the oversight of the OFT's work, and I am sure that she will agree that it is desirable that it conducts, as it intends to, at least two investigations each year—and certainly next year—into the impact of Government regulations on markets. She understands, as I do, how competition policy works. Competition has to be constrained when public services are involved and competition policy bites only to the extent that undertakings do not provide services of general economic interest—public services, in the European Union jargon. Therefore, why did not the Secretary of State or her colleague in the Department of Health make sure that, when the OFT examined this market, it did not confine itself to the examination of the market impact of the control of entry regulations, but considered the public service obligations that had to be met by community pharmacies? Why did it not construct its report in that wider context?
Ms Hewitt: Let me make it plain that it is the OFT's job to examine competition, not to advise us on health policy. On the matter of the OFT's investigations into the impact of Government regulations, we do not leave it to the OFT to make the final decision as we now quite rightly do in merger cases. It is for the Government to make the policy decisions on public services, including the national health service.
I know very well—this debate has already reflected it—the deep concern that there is inside and outside the House that simply abolishing the control of entry

303
regulations might lead to widespread closures of community pharmacies, particularly in rural or deprived areas. That concern is reflected in today's report from the Select Committee on Health. I am grateful to the Committee's members for their speedy inquiry. We will consider their report and conclusions before we take our decisions.
Mr. Nigel Dodds: The situation in Scotland and Wales was mentioned earlier, but will the Secretary of State welcome the decision made by her colleague the Minister for Work when he was the Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland with responsibility for health? He was not a devolved Minister but a direct-rule Minister, and he unequivocally rejected the Office of Fair Trading recommendations for Northern Ireland on 26 March. He cited the detrimental impact that the proposals would have on the infirm, vulnerable and less well off. Would she care to follow her colleague's example?
Ms Hewitt: Health Ministers in each of the devolved Administrations made their decisions, which was absolutely right. We shall take our decision when we have completed the consultation and deliberation that my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) and I announced before the end of March.
As I was saying, the OFT's job is to examine competition, not to decide health policy. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer argued forcefully in a lecture earlier this year, there are limits to markets, especially health care markets. There are certainly limits to competition among pharmacies, and I agree with the hon. Member for South Suffolk that pharmacies are, on average, dependent for about 80 per cent. of their income on revenue received for dispensing NHS prescriptions, the price of which is fixed by the Government. Labour Members are clear that pharmacists are clinicians and not only shopkeepers.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and I said on 26 March, we will come forward before the summer recess with a balanced package of measures. We favour change to open up the market and to improve quality, access and choice for patients—hon. Members of all parties have supported those points—without diminishing the crucial roles that pharmacies play, especially in poorer and rural areas. We have already consulted widely and I am grateful to the thousands of people, including many hon. Members, who have given us their views. We shall consider especially the impact of any change on rural communities in line with our commitment to those communities and also ensure that all policies take account of their specific needs and circumstances. The hon. Member for South Suffolk got rather hot under the collar on that subject and I am sure that his failure to mention the fact that rural post office closures have almost stopped was a mere oversight. Closures are occurring at the lowest rate since 1995 thanks to the measures and financial support that this Government have put in place.
Mr. Yeo: What the right hon. Lady says does not take account of the fact that the direct consequence of the
304
Government's policy to change the way in which benefits are paid is that two fifths of rural post offices' income has been taken away.
Ms Hewitt: I know that the hon. Gentleman is becoming increasingly impatient with any change at all. He clearly pays no attention to the fact that the present system of giro books is acutely vulnerable to fraud and extremely expensive to administer. However, that is all that we can expect given that we inherited the system from his Government. The measures that we have implemented to ban any avoidable rural post office closure and the financial support that we are providing for rural post offices, linked with our support for shops in our rural villages, are helping to strengthen our rural communities.
I regret the fact that the hon. Gentleman continues to peddle the idea that the only way to get people to use rural or urban post offices is by chaining them there with their benefit books. He should welcome changes that the Post Office's new management is making to ensure that people with a range of bank accounts may do their banking at post offices and gain other services and benefits when they do so.
Roger Casale: I welcome the sensitive and balanced recognition that my right hon. Friend is giving to the need for sensible regulation. I have consulted Paresh Modasia, who is a leading community pharmacist in my constituency, and he and other community pharmacists are keen to work with the grain and the Government. They recognise the need for change, not least keeping pharmacies open later in the evening and developing their role in the new NHS. Will she confirm again that her Department is keen to work with representatives from community pharmacies to develop dialogue so that we can find out how to achieve the best outcome for everyone?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. There is a full dialogue and partnership between the Department of Health and community pharmacists, building on the proposals in "Pharmacy for the Future" that are being developed in discussions on the new contract. All of that will inform the policy decision that we make on the particular issues raised by the Office of Fair Trading report.
John Mann: The success in implementing the Government's updated drugs strategy requires community pharmacists to provide greatly increased supervised consumption of methadone and other substitute drugs. Will my right hon. Friend comment on the importance of the community pharmacy in the success of that strategy?
Ms Hewitt: My hon. Friend is right. Part of the way in which we will deal with the menace of growing illegal drug use is by mobilising community pharmacists to supervise much more effectively the treatment of drug addicts within the community. That is one of the many issues that we are taking into account as we consider how to move forward.
Mr. John Horam: Does the right hon. Lady recognise the vital point made by my hon. Friend

305
the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) that two things are going on simultaneously for which she is responsible—the closure of sub-post offices and the possible closure of pharmacies? Those two together, both in suburban areas like my constituency and in rural areas, pose a threat to small local shopping parades and villages. The worry is that there will be less accessibility to services overall.
Ms Hewitt: I understand those concerns, but the hon. Gentleman ignores what I just said and the steps that we have taken to protect and reopen post offices and shops in many of our rural communities. He assumes that changes will lead to the closure of community pharmacies. We will ensure that that is not the case. That is why we made it clear in our statement on 26 March that we will produce a balanced package to achieve the goals, which I hope he shares, of better quality access and choice for patients and a stronger, not a lesser, role for community pharmacists.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
Ms Hewitt: No, I intend to bring my remarks to a close.
The proposals that we will produce before the summer recess will also be the subject of full consultation and debate within the House.
As our Government continue to improve the NHS, we will ensure that pharmacists are recognised as full contributors to primary care services, as the first port of call for patients and consumers in discussing everyday health problems, and as important partners in reducing health inequalities and in dealing with some of the most serious health problems that our communities face. The Government are increasing investment in the NHS by a third over the next three years. For all the crocodile tears that the hon. Member for South Suffolk shed, we know that the Conservatives would cut investment in health services by 20 per cent. What would that do for community pharmacies, hospitals, doctors and nurses?
We will make the investment that our health service needs and promote the reforms that it needs. We will make that investment and those reforms in the interests of patients and communities. In doing so, we will strengthen the vital role of our community pharmacists. I commend the amendment to the House.
5.44 pm
Sandra Gidley: Unlike the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), I welcome the opportunity to debate community pharmacies. The subject is of great interest to many of my constituents and fellow professionals. Perhaps I should explain that I am fairly unique among hon. Members in that I was a community pharmacist.
Clearly pharmacies are a health issue and should not come under the remit of the Department of Trade and Industry. Although I welcome the thrust of the Conservatives' argument, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) over-egged the pudding.
306
It was with utter disbelief that I listened to his "emperor's new clothes" speech, showing the Conservatives' new, cosy, caring attitude. Personally, I found that hard to take, but he did the health service a big favour by highlighting how the drugs budget could be reduced. Instead of prescribing emetics, a doctor could just give a patient some over-the-top passages from the hon. Gentleman's speech demonstrating the Conservatives' caring nature, and the desired result would be achieved.
There is a lot of consensus on this issue on both sides of the House. Many Members have presented petitions either in the Chamber or to the Department of Trade and Industry, and today the Select Committee on Health, on which I serve, has produced a report on the issue, on which it was easy to secure all-party consensus. Our earlier debate concentrated on the Cabinet reshuffle, one aspect of which, sadly, has not attracted any attention. Five of the six Ministers in the Department of Health have been replaced, and I wish the new Minister with the brief for pharmacies well. I looked up the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the lion. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) to investigate the history of his interest in health, and found that he had a doctorate in isotopic abundances in soil development—[Interruption.] The Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton) points out that she has responsibility for pharmacies. I urge her to tell the information unit at the Department of Health, which clearly thought that somebody else did. There is confusion in the Department about who has responsibility for the matter.
Mr. David Hinehliffe: There may be confusion in the Department of Health, but I think that the Conservatives chose today's debate. Is the hon. Lady surprised that there is one Conservative Back Bencher in the Chamber, making a total of three Tories present, which is disgraceful for an Opposition day debate?
Sandra Gidley: I agree entirely. I referred earlier to the emperor's new clothes and crocodile tears, and the Conservatives' absence is a true reflection of how much they care about the deprived.
The need to preserve access to local health services is of fundamental importance to our constituents and, for many, that means preserving access to local pharmacies. I referred earlier to the fact that I was a pharmacist before I came to the House, and I should state at the outset that I am probably the villain of the piece, as for a few years I was that hated figure, the supermarket pharmacist. Prior to that, I had experience in small and medium-sized family businesses, and did locum work for independent pharmacies. I have therefore worked in pharmacies of almost every size.
It is invidious to depict the supermarket pharmacist or a pharmacist in a large Boots as someone who does not provide a full service—a point that I shall return to later. All pharmacists receive the same training, and are highly qualified. The problem is making sure that they provide the range of services that are needed. I fully accept that there is probably a positive bias in favour of small, independent pharmacies that provide a wider range of services, which is often the only way that they can add value to their business.

307
I want to deal with the historical context of the problem. As has been mentioned, pharmacies increased at a rate of approximately 130 a year in the early 1980s, which was unsustainable. The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry rightly said that the Treasury responded to that growth—the big problem was the method of payment, which favoured small, low-volume pharmacies.
Nobody has mentioned another problem, which made that change easier to achieve at the time: the problem of leapfrogging. There was a firm, which I shall name—Lloyds Chemists—that used to open branches between an existing pharmacy and a doctor's surgery and cream off half the business. Many independent pharmacies were threatened, and many people in the pharmacy profession felt that something had to be done about Lloyds, so it was relatively easy to accept the control of entry proposals at that time. The villain of the piece then was not supermarkets, but Lloyds. We do nobody a favour by pretending that only supermarkets could benefit from a relaxation of entry controls. The large firms on the high street, such as Boots and Superdrug, are also looking to expand, and their expansion poses just as much of a problem to existing pharmacies.
Some of the knock-on effects of control of entry were not predicted. The pharmacy profession noted that Lloyds was not stopped in its tracks. Where it was prevented from opening, it simply bought out all the very small firms. I used to work for a small family business with five shops. The owner died, and there was a piece about the business in The Pharmaceutical Journal. People phoned the family asking to buy the shops, not realising that that gentleman had three sons who were pharmacists and who clearly wanted to continue the family business. It was an aggressive time, and Lloyds is now one of the largest chains in pharmacy.
The other knock-on effect was that the cost of the average pharmacy business increased dramatically. I know that because at one stage in the late 1980s, I considered opening my own pharmacy.
Andy Burnham: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for an hon. Member to read a newspaper while the debate is in progress?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): That is a matter for the Chair, but the Chair would not normally approve. I had not noticed.
Mr. Bill Wiggin: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No.
Sandra Gidley: The cost of the good will of a pharmacy business increased dramatically, making it almost impossible for somebody without financial backing to open an independent pharmacy. Such a person had to be very cute about a new opportunity opening up—there were people who regularly trailed housing estates to see where a doctor's surgery might open, to try to get in there. Another problem was that many contracts were sold to supermarkets or other large companies that could offer large premiums. That had a
308
detrimental effect on pharmacy provision overall. Jobs advertised in The Pharmaceutical Journal are much reduced and are all with medium to large firms.
Because supermarket pharmacies were offering so much money, nobody else could get in. In my locality there were two independent pharmacies. Both wanted to sell to an independent purchaser, but both were forced to sell to chains because nobody else could afford to pay.
Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that every time a small local pharmacy sells on to a superstore, the service is removed from the most dependent elderly people, people without transport and those who cannot get to the superstore, who depend on the pharmacy not only for their prescriptions, but for the wider primary care service that pharmacies are now supposed to provide?
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman has a point, but the two pharmacies that I referred to still look like small pharmacies. They are just branded with a firm's logo. However, there is no longer 24-hour access to the person above the shop who, if somebody knocked on his door, would go down and provide the emergency inhaler mentioned earlier. That provision has gone. If people do not own their businesses, it is much more difficult to find any who are motivated to provide delivery services. Generally, such services are not paid for by the Department of Health, so they represent an added value that a business subsidises out of its profits.
The new contract has been mentioned. I know that many pharmacists are apprehensive about it because they fear that they will be given the same amount of money, but asked to do a lot more. Will the Minister give some reassurance that extra funding will be available if extra services are being provided? I am sure that that would put many people's minds at rest.
Mr. Steen: The hon. Lady will remember that I initiated the first Westminster Hall debate about this matter on 12 March this year, to which she made a very useful contribution as a pharmacist. As I said then, pharmacists in my constituency are concerned about the£18,000 contract that she mentioned. I believe that every pharmacist has such a contract for national health service prescriptions. Does she agree that that is what we want the Minister to deal with? I got the impression from the Secretary of State's speech that the Government were going to play around with that £18,000 and that some pharmacists will get more, but many will get less. Does she agree that it is crucial that that amount is high and that, if it is not, community pharmacists will not be able to survive?
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman makes a useful intervention, and he has a point. I am not necessarily saying that £18,000 is the level that must be set for only the dispensing part of the business. Clearly, he is right that a sustainable level is needed, but the concern is that some of the roles that pharmacists take on require much time and energy and cannot be funded out of any small amount that is left over, so new money is needed.
The buck is often passed back to the primary care trusts. Many hon. Members attended the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee dinner

309
earlier in the year. The Minister who attended mentioned that the money was available for PCTs to give out, but there was a groan throughout the audience. It came not from pharmacists, but from people at the primary care trusts, who saw it as yet another demand on the money, which could go only so far. We accept that there is more money, but it is still difficult to give it in all the right places.
I admit that the status quo is not perfect. Everyone who gave evidence to the Select Committee on Health agreed that some change was necessary, but there appeared to be an emerging consensus that distribution should definitely take into account local health needs. As part of the reforms, we need to establish exactly what services should be available at every pharmacy, in addition to the core business of dispensing.
Various services can be available. Some pharmacies provide oxygen services, supervised dispensing of methadone and monitored dose systems for old people's homes allowing people to keep a check on their medications, and delivery, prescription collection and 24-hour services. I have provided all those services in my time, and I provided all but the 24-hour availability service in some role in working for a supermarket pharmacy. However, I fully accept that provision in supermarket pharmacies is patchy.
John Mann: On supervised consumption of methadone and other blockers, and in relation to drugs, does she accept that the problem of supermarket pharmacies is that the people on supervised consumption will often have a track record of shoplifting and will have been banned from supermarkets where they have previously stolen? That can also be a problem in some of the larger and wider product chains such as Boots.
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point. I was going to refer to that problem later, because I have witnessed it myself. Where dispensing provisions have been set up, addicts have sometimes been nicked on the way out for trying to steal, say, a bottle of whisky. That leads to a real battle with the management of the store, who will not allow those people back in.
The report by the Office of Fair Trading suggested that consumers benefit because more people have access to low-priced medicines in supermarkets. The Secretary of State mentioned that earlier. The OFT estimated that the consumer will save £20 million to £25 million on pharmacy-only medicines—that is, medicines that are available only in pharmacies. However, there is a flaw in that argument. The Secretary of State rightly said that there was an immediate drop in prices, but evidence to the Select Committee showed that they have climbed back up. One can get cut-price Calpol from time to time in Boots, but the range of products on offer is extremely narrow and represents only a small percentage of what people buy.
Some people are tempted to travel to buy medicines cheaply. That takes away trade from small independents that simply do not have the purchasing power to compete.
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: The hon. Lady makes a compelling point. It was reinforced by the British
310
Medical Association, which said that what little gain there might be to consumers from deregulation—for example, through cheaper general sales list items—would be insufficient to offset the wider cost.
Sandra Gidley: I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman, as I shall demonstrate.
The OFT suggested that the pharmacies that will close are those in the immediate environment of a supermarket. I think that it is completely wrong in that assumption, as did many of the people who gave evidence to the Committee. The pharmacies under threat are those in villages and inner-city areas and those that serve housing estates. They teeter on the brink of viability. Co-op chemists and the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee have independently concluded that there is likely to be a cut of at least 10 per cent. in business, although that estimate is fairly conservative. That could lead to the closure of several pharmacies.
It would be easy, but overly simplistic, to think, "People are going to the supermarket anyway. What's the problem?" The problem has already been alluded to. Different groups of people are involved.
Angela Watkinson: Two regular customers who wanted a cough remedy consulted the pharmacist in one of my community pharmacies. He was alarmed by the cough, decided to test the level of carbon monoxide in their blood, and found it to be unnaturally high, whereupon he advised them to go home and have their gas appliances tested. They were found to be in a very dangerous state. Does the hon. Lady think that such service would be available in a large pharmacy or supermarket where there is not that degree of familiarity between the pharmacist and customers?
Sandra Gidley: The hon. Lady raises two points. First, she describes a service that is not widely available. I do not know whether it is being provided because of a local decision or the interest of that pharmacist, but such provision is generally patchy.
Secondly, she suggests that supermarket pharmacies are anonymous. I admit that, before I worked in a supermarket pharmacy, I completely agreed with that—in fact, I put off working in one for years because I did not relish the anonymity. It was only because it fitted in with my children—something that will be appreciated by the Secretary of State in her role as Minister for Women—that I bit the bullet and decided to work there. I found that it was not as I had suspected. People came in to say hello when they were buying their bread and milk. A supermarket pharmacy can have that aspect, too. That does not mean that I want everybody to go to their supermarket pharmacy, but it is not the complete villain of the piece that it has been painted as in some quarters.
There are some good supermarket pharmacies, but in some parts of the country, they struggle to provide regular cover. That is not good for anybody in the community because it means that people do not get continued care. A balance must be struck.
There are different groups of people. The mobile population can jump into cars—or even 4x4s, if my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) does not

311
ban them. Having to drive a further mile for medicine is a minor inconvenience to that group. However, most of us entered politics to speak for the very people who suffer most: the elderly, the ill, people who cannot afford a car and those in deprived communities.
John Mann: Has the hon. Lady considered the impact of the Government's NHS local improvement finance trust—LIFT—policy? In my constituency, it means that three mining villages will get brand new doctor's surgeries in the next year. Every one will have a new community pharmacy as part of the premises: three new pharmacies in three mining villages.
Sandra Gidley: Sadly, coming from leafy Hampshire means that I have little practical experience of NHS LIFT. However, I shall deal with the point about pharmacies in doctor's surgeries and doctors dispensing later.
Even if those who cannot afford a car can afford the bus fare, they cannot find a bus, which is a rare sight in many areas nowadays, thanks mostly to the Conservative party. The OFT report is based on competition and market forces, and could benefit the haves and deprive the have-nots. I seriously believed that such politics had come to an end when we said goodbye to Margaret Thatcher. It would appear that I am wrong but I wait to be reassured by Ministers. So little information is forthcoming, even from Health Ministers, that it is difficult to be reassured that financial arguments will not win the day.
The OFT also claims that increased competition would lead to pharmacists offering new services. Let us consider the 1980s when Lloyds Chemists were the villain of the piece. They offered not new services, but extended hours. All pharmacists at Lloyds were asked to work from 9 am to 7 pm without a lunch break. That decision prompted me to work in the supermarket; such hours were clearly not sustainable for those with young families. Working those hours may not sound like a problem, but if pharmacists make a mistake in dispensing medicines, it is not a case of, "Oh well, never mind." The consequences for someone's health could be serious and it is therefore important to remain alert until the end of the day. Lloyds chemists did the industry no favours by increasing hours. Clearly, nobody wanted to work for a couple of hours in the evening.
The OFT report also claims:
"in areas where there are no NHS dispensing pharmacies, dispensing by GPs offers a further mechanism to ensure appropriate access to prescribed medicines."
It has already been said that dispensing doctors oppose the proposals. The OFT report ignores the fact that pharmacies are not simply about dispensing. We will lose access to other services, and the hours of availability, during which people can get their medicines, will decrease because surgeries are not manned all the time.
Although dispensing doctors have improved greatly over the years, there is no compulsion on them to employ a qualified person to do the dispensing. It is called "doctor dispensing", but the doctor does not usually go anywhere near the process. There are no controls such as those over supermarket pharmacies, and dispensing in doctor's surgeries is more expensive.
312
We should ask for an on-site pharmacy in surgeries, but with a qualified pharmacist. There is no problem with siting pharmacies in doctor's surgeries, provided that the correct health professionals are also there, and that it is done more holistically. Problems arise through unqualified staff and reduced hours. The service is not as good as it should be.
John Mann: I fear that there is some confusion in the hon. Lady's argument. My local GP's surgery in North Leverton has a dispensary built in. When I go in, along with all the pensioners and others, I see the doctor in one room, the receptionist is nearby, and on the left-hand side next to the reception is the dispensing chemist, who is often the receptionist as well. Having all the services on the one site is a perfect scenario for the elderly and vulnerable.
Sandra Gidley: I think that it is the hon. Gentleman who is confused. He has just illustrated the problem by saying that the dispensing chemist was often the receptionist as well. I have to say that qualified pharmacists are not usually receptionists. I would be grateful if he would go back to this doctor's surgery and ask what qualifications those people have. They might have some, but from what he has told me, it sounds as though they are not qualified pharmacists. He mentioned the accessibility problem, which has been solved, but we need to link this up with proper pharmacy provision.
John Mann: Will the hon. Lady give way?
Sandra Gidley: No, I want to give other people a chance to speak. It is important that I give the Chairman of the Health Committee some time, so I shall cut my speech short. I have taken a great many interventions, and I must now come to my conclusion.
As I said earlier, the crux of the matter is not who is the good guy and who is the baddie in all this. It has been noted that 79 per cent. of the population have a community pharmacy within a kilometre of their home—I am not ashamed to use metric measurements—and those people have access to a range of services. If that figure falls as a result of deregulation, we will have failed the public. I am not interested in protecting existing monopolies, but in preserving access to a local pharmacist, with all the benefits that that involves. We need to be more prescriptive about what services are provided; that could presumably form part of the contract. We also need to ensure that if a pharmacy is unwilling to provide an enhanced range of services, its contract could be reviewed in some way. The most important thing is to provide services to patients, not to protect vested interests. These services must be funded, and we now have a golden opportunity to change things for the better. The OFT route is not the right one, however.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I will support the Conservatives in the Lobby tonight. May I suggest to Labour Members that they should be wary of the weasel words in the Government's amendment? If they truly want to show that they have no faith in the OFT report, they should walk through the Opposition Lobby tonight.
6.12 pm
Mr. David Hinchliffe: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who speaks with great authority on these issues and has recently made an important contribution to the Health Committee inquiry into this matter.
As this is the first—partial—health debate since the reshuffle, I should like to take the opportunity to welcome the Minister of State, Department of Health, my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton). It is good to have a Yorkshire voice on the Health team. I also look forward to working closely and warmly with the other new members of the team. I also welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Sutcliffe). I am bereft of my Yorkshire Whip now that he has gone to the Department of Trade and Industry. I shall miss him, although whether he will miss me is a different matter. We have had a very good relationship over the years, and I wish him well in his work.
I pay tribute to the work of my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I deeply respect his decision to be with Ruth and the children; he has many achievements to his name of which he can be very proud.
I find myself in an interesting situation. This is the first occasion that I can recall during my time in Parliament on which I could quite easily vote for either the Opposition motion or the Government's amendment. I am quite happy with both, and I have no difficulty with either position because they both encompass clear concerns, aims and objectives that we can all share.
I find the Tories' position—a significantly increased role for the market in health care—interesting. On an issue such as this, however, when their constituents are expressing concerns about the possible disappearance of local pharmacies, they are actively arguing their case in relation to an OFT report that the Government have yet to consider.
Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Hinchliffe: No; other hon. Members want to speak, and I want to give them a chance to make their contributions. The hon. Gentleman will be able to make his points when he winds up the debate.
Today, the Health Committee published its report following a brief inquiry, and I shall base my speech on it. I feel strongly that, historically, we have failed to exploit the potential of a number of key elements of the NHS, primary care being a good example. I pay tribute to the Government's attempts to devolve more power to that sector: I think we shall see the benefits in the longer term. Similarly, we have failed for many years to exploit the potential of community pharmacies.
My constituency contains a number of first-class community pharmacies and pharmacists. I am especially privileged to have as a constituent Gill Hawksworth, who last week was elected president of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain. She has badgered me long and hard about the potential for community pharmacies to play a much larger role in the NHS. The time that I spent with her in her Mirfield pharmacy taught me a great deal.
314
I also thank Irene Gummerson, a pharmacist at the Warrengate pharmacy in my constituency, for allowing me to spend a morning in her pharmacy and to see exactly what is done in pharmacies. I learnt a great deal there as well. I have also spent time at Boots in my constituency, and learnt much about what it does as a major player in community pharmacy. Finally, let me thank Phil Bratley, who has been secretary of the local pharmaceutical committee, for his support and advice.
The current regulatory regime was introduced in 1987, and it is right for us to review it on occasion. The Government deserve praise for their detailed examination of the greater role that could be played by community pharmacies, but the OFT review is rooted in economic and competitive arguments rather than arguments about health, as has already been pointed out today.
The Health Committee inquiry was undertaken because of many Members' anxieties about the possible consequences of the OFT report. On one day we took evidence from a range of key players, including the OFT, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee, various providers and, of course, Asda, which would be a major player in the event of deregulation. The evidence made it clear to me that there was broad agreement about the fact that the number of pharmacies would increase initially following deregulation, but that in the longer term many pharmacies in rural and deprived areas would be threatened by a loss of dispensing revenues to new pharmacies, especially in bigger stores.
We reached a number of conclusions. First, we concluded that, as the Secretary of State has said, the control of entry regulations need reform and modernisation. In many parts of the country, including parts of my constituency, people have no access to prescriptions out of normal hours. We established that community pharmacists support modernisation, and they would plainly want to be key players in the process of ensuring a more positive service.
The evidence suggested a strong likelihood of closures in the event of acceptance of the OFT report. That would have a particular impact on poorer communities and especially on elderly and immobile people, some of whom would lose their local services. A calculation in our report, which I have no time to quote, shows the exact percentage of community pharmacies that could be lost.
The Committee also felt that the OFT's projected savings were questionable and did not stand up to detailed analysis. In particular, a reduction in community pharmacies is highly likely to lead to people wanting to access more expensive elements of the national health service, such as GPs and casualty units, to get the service and the prescriptions that they need. We felt that there is a need for an enhanced role for primary care trusts to plan the provision of pharmacy services, to ensure that local pharmacies do provide extra services. Indeed, I believe that the Minister agrees that that is the way forward.
I hope that the Government will take note of the points made in our report and in this debate. The key conclusion that I reach is that market forces are not a proper basis for health care provision. I make that point to the Opposition, but I also make it to the Government.
6.20 pm
Mr. Peter Ainsworth: It is a pleasure to follow the distinguished Chairman of the Health Committee, the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe), on the day when the Committee produced an intelligent and thoughtful report on a subject of huge interest to all of our constituents. I received petitions containing some 3,000 names, all of which I forwarded diligently to the Department in the earnest hope that they will be taken seriously and that the concerns expressed will not only be listened to but acted on when the Government take their decision on the OFT report.
Let me come straight to the point made by the hon. Member for Wakefield about the Conservatives' position. It is quite simple: where we see that market forces will benefit patients, help to raise standards and help to lever funds into the health service, we are keen to use them. However, where opening up to market forces—of course, we are talking about a system that was put in place by a Conservative Government in the 1980s—reduces access to health care, as in this case, we do not think it such a good idea after all. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) will have more to say about that issue later.
At a time when we often hear that people are not interested in politics, it is worth noting that an issue such as this can really grab people's attention. People care very much about their local pharmacies, and the strength of the public's response is evidence of that. Indeed, one welcome outcome of the Government's otherwise unwelcome prevarication about the future of community pharmacies is that it has heightened public awareness of the valuable contribution of pharmacies to communities throughout the country. That has enabled this important industry to set out its stall, which it has done extremely well.
The Office of Fair Trading report makes a reasonable case on behalf of the industry, particularly on the issue of access. As we have heard, the OFT says that 90 per cent. of people find access to their local pharmacy easy to achieve. It also states:
"The UK is currently well served geographically by pharmacies."
That part of its analysis may be correct, but we Conservatives believe that it has come up with the wrong prescription. The changes might not affect access dramatically in the first instance, but they will in the longer term, and the Select Committee report endorses that view; more immediately, they will affect ownership. Small, family-run businesses will be at the losing end of a commercial battle with the large supermarkets. Asda, Sainsbury's and Tesco have clearly said that if deregulation goes ahead they will dramatically increase their involvement in this sector. So the debate about community pharmacies is not only about the provision of service; it also touches on the wider issue of the tension that exists between communities and corporations. That is a familiar debate.
Broadly speaking, I support open entry into markets and I am wary of protectionism, but competition is not a virtue in its own right. It may often have virtuous consequences, but its benefits must be weighed against its potential impact on society, individuals, communities and the environment. Competition ceases
316
to be a virtue where the local is sacrificed to the multinational, the trusted and familiar is ditched in favour of the new-fangled, and the community is engulfed by the corporate.
With the benefit of hindsight, few would fail to see that, before it was checked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the growth of out-of-town shopping centres had a huge and adverse impact on town centres throughout the country, weakening social cohesion and encouraging car dependency. Few people now applaud the way in which the growth of supermarkets has led to the steady decline of corner shops. Social cohesion has already suffered enough dereliction in the name of progress. The Office of Fair Trading proposals would, if implemented, only make matters worse.
The case for throwing the network of community pharmacies to the winds of competition is fundamentally flawed for two principal reasons. First, the OFT proposals would deal directly with only 5 per cent. of the total market, but might have enormous effects on the market as a whole, especially on access to NHS prescriptions. Secondly, pharmacies and pharmacists are a key part—perhaps the most undervalued part—of the NHS. That is what makes them different from other commercial businesses. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) touched on that point in his opening remarks.
Angela Watkinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the viability of community pharmacies would be enhanced if their role in the NHS were enhanced—for example, by giving them prescribing and consultation rights?
Mr. Ainsworth: I greatly agree with my hon. Friend. Community pharmacies already play an extremely important role within the NHS, but, I believe, in common with other hon. Members, that that role could be further expanded. Indeed, under the existing regulatory regime, put in place by the Conservative Government, local community pharmacies wasted little time in expanding the range of services that they offered. They have been quick to react to changing circumstances, to move into new housing developments and, as the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) pointed out, into supermarkets. They have shown a welcome degree of flexibility.
Bob Spink: Would my hon. Friend add to his two excellent reasons a third—namely,the protection of the most vulnerable people in our communities, who rely disproportionately on local services?
Mr. Ainsworth: I was about to come on to that point and I agree with my hon. Friend. Providing advice on medicines, handing out prescriptions and dealing with drug-related illnesses are very different specialties from selling washing powder or baked beans. We are dealing with a particularly sensitive and vulnerable section of the community. Particular skills are required to deal with them and the normal rules of competition cannot appropriately be applied. Only the most blinkered obsessive for competition could fail to see that that is the case and to act accordingly.

317
People are fearful of losing their community pharmacies. They particularly fear losing the personal touch that they get when they walk into their local chemist's. I received a letter from Mrs. Carol Bacon, the manager of a pharmacy in Caterham, who said:
"I know many, many of my customers on personal name terms and frequently advise them (free of charge) on all kinds of health matters".
Mr. White, of Payden's in Oxsted in my constituency, said:
"In my own branch we know all customers personally, giving advice, collecting prescriptions from the local health centre, operating a late night service in line with health service hours and being available for any urgent out of hours prescriptions."
The support of those people, and others like them, in my part of the world and in the constituencies of my hon. Friends is testament enough to the strong emphasis that communities and individuals place on having a reliable community pharmacy at their disposal in their neighbourhood.
The Government seem to be dimly aware that the OFT prescription is flawed—hence, I suspect, the delay in reaching a decision, and the curious ambivalence of the press release that they put out on 26 March and the amendment that they have tabled today. The press release states that the Government favour
"change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that pharmacies play, especially in poor and rural areas".
I note that the word "rural" has disappeared from the motion. It appeared in the press release but is not in the amendment. I do not know whether we should read anything into that.
The emphasis on poorer and rural areas—it also appears in the Select Committee's report—is no doubt laudable, but it is important to recognise that pharmacies also play a crucial role for people who do not live in poorer or rural areas. It is not just people in poorer or rural areas who fall ill. People also fall ill in the leafy suburbs and market towns. In many cases, those who rely on their local pharmacies are the most vulnerable—the elderly, the frail and children. The socio-economic mix of the area in which they live is not relevant to them when they need easy access to pharmacy services.
The NHS should treat people equally on the basis of clinical need, not on the basis of geography. I hope that the Government will not cook up a scheme that makes an arbitrary distinction between disadvantaged areas and the rest. The most important factor in this debate is the disadvantaged people who have to go to their pharmacy in the first place—and that has nothing to do with geography. People catch colds and grow old in suburbia, too.
Smallfield, in my constituency, is not particularly poor or rich, nor is it particularly rural. It is a growing village of mainly 20th century housing, and is typical of many communities across the country. Twelve years ago, Andrew Jackson set up the Hogarth pharmacy in Smallfield, to public acclaim. He runs a good business and provides an amazingly wide range of services. He has six staff and receives huge support from the local community. He wrote to me to express his concern for the future. He said:
318
"Deregulation of the pharmacy contract would lead to an increase in competition for 4 to 5 per cent. of my trade. This situation could close me—so the 85 per cent. of my trade that is so important to our community would be lost to a less accessible and more inconvenient pharmacy … If we go, what will the elderly do? What will the young mothers do? What will the disabled do? What will the unemployed with no expendable funds do? Where will my customers go? How will they get there?"
Those are the questions that the Government need to answer before swinging the axe of competition at that vital part of the national health service, and vulnerable communities and individuals across the country.
6.34 pm
Andy Burnham: As one of the few who has been present throughout the debate, unlike some Opposition Members, I can say that a lot of brass neck has been on show. Conservative Members have talked about the poor, the disadvantaged and the vulnerable in their communities, but it is a shame that they showed no regard for those people and communities when they were in office. I do not know how they have the nerve to claim to be speaking up for those communities. Conservative Members should be ashamed of the brass neck that they have displayed today.
In the short time available, I want to say a few words about my most recent visit to a community pharmacy. A few weeks ago, in the recent recess, I was in charge of the children. That happens only rarely. I received an emergency call from my son's nursery asking me to come and pick him up straight away. The problem was very serious—he had nits.
Before my colleagues start scratching and moving away from me, I must explain that I am using this example to illustrate the fine services that community pharmacies provide. I visited the Lowton pharmacy in my area, where the pharmacist spent a long time coaching me in the use of a fine-toothed comb, and about the need to get all the nits out of my son's hair. We were very grateful for that, and I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) that there is no danger that he will be infested.
In my experience, community pharmacies offer an absolutely excellent quality of service. One of the premises in the OFT report that needs to be questioned is that the lack of competition in the market means that the quality of service provided is too often patchy or poor. That is not so: most community pharmacies around the country provide an excellent and attentive service to the communities that they serve.
When considering the control of entry system recommended by the OFT, we must try to define how the public interest is best served. Setting aside the specifics for a moment, I believe that we are presented with two options: a planned system under the control of health bodies that provides a spread of outlets according to health need; or a system of unregulated entry to the market, with special measures to protect access where markets fail. The chief benefit of the first option is that it would guarantee access across the country, whereas the second option is based on the premise that the lack of competition denies people the benefits of low prices and better-quality services.
That brings us to two key questions, on which other hon. Members have touched already. Is there a conflict between the interests of consumers and patients? Are those interests the same, or should they be separated?

319
The OFT performs a valuable function in challenging existing practices and norms. Its work is normally based on the assumption that we are all demanding consumers, mobile and able to move our business around to find the lowest price and the best service.
Under the existing system, it is true that costs may be imposed on businesses and consumers, but are they worth paying, in the light of the wider benefits that they bring to society? Although the assumption about mobile consumers may be relevant to other markets, the community pharmacy market is very different, for three key reasons. First, 80 per cent. of the market's value comes from one customer, the NHS, in the form of prescription traffic. Secondly, the products that this market deals with are frequently essential to the people who need them. They are not a matter of discretion, and they can be required at short notice, and urgently. Thirdly, the majority of customers in the market are also the most vulnerable and least mobile members of society—the oldest and sickest, the people on the lowest incomes, and people with children. When we consider any changes to the current system, it is the interests of those people, the biggest users of the service, that we should bear most clearly in mind. For those people, ease of access is vital.
Without doubt, the OFT's analysis contains much of worth, but figure 4.4 of the report shows that localness and convenience are cited by 86 per cent. of respondents as the main reasons that they choose a pharmacy to get an NHS prescription fulfilled. Indeed, the report states:
"The degree of local access to pharmacies in the UK is currently good, with the majority of consumers finding it easy to get to a pharmacy from their home or from their GP's surgery."
Some people may argue that that is a justification of the current system in itself and that, in a market where consumers value access and local service most, access is incredibly good across the country. However, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, the system was introduced for a different reason—to control the prescribing budget in the NHS. Can we achieve the same benefit of providing the service where it is needed, while also doing more to promote quality in the system? That is the key question.
Finally, one element in the OFT research troubles me. The research assumes that the pharmacies that close when new entrants to the market open will be those that are closest to supermarkets. I do not believe that that is true. People who use supermarkets tend to come from within an area that has a wide radius of at least five miles. In my constituency, for example, I believe that it is the outlying pharmacies that could be threatened by the removal of the controls of entry. That needs to be considered.
My constituency has a large town at its centre; it is a former mining area where rates of chronic illness are higher than the national average and many families are in the lowest income groups. There is low car ownership and public transport services are poor. Areas such as Leigh will lose a lot from the abolition of the current system, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (John Mann) pointed out, constituencies such as ours stand to gain the most from the delivery of a much improved community pharmacy system, which is more accessible and provides people with a higher quality service.
6.40 pm
Chris Grayling: In anticipation of a speech from the Minister of State, Department of Health, the hon. Member for Doncaster, Central (Ms Winterton), I welcome her to her new position. We are surprised by the scale of the changes at the Department of Health; the hon. Lady will have a lot to do during a difficult and busy time for the Department. I look forward to debating with her.
This has been an interesting and important debate. My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) began it effectively, speaking forcefully about the role of community pharmacists and the importance of pharmacies in the communities that Members on both sides of the House represent. He challenged Labour Members to support our motion, as well as the early-day motion that many of them signed, to send a further message to both the Government and pharmacists about the importance that we attribute to the work of pharmacists for our society.
The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made what can only be described as a balanced speech, in keeping with her current policy. She talked in glowing terms about community pharmacists, but then referred to the competitive context for the industry. I greatly hope that, when we hear the Government's final verdict, there will not be a sting in the tail for our community pharmacists. Given the interest displayed by hon. Members in this issue, will the Minister of State give us an assurance in her winding-up speech that, when the Government eventually publish their policy decision, they will make a full statement to the House?
We heard an authoritative speech from the hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley), who brings considerable professional expertise to the subject. However, her speech was spoiled by the fact that she complained about over-the-top comments from the Conservatives while making over-the-top comments herself. I was surprised to hear her say that community pharmacists who did not take on extra responsibilities should risk the loss of their contracts. That would be a great shame. The work of our community pharmacists goes well beyond the call of duty and well beyond the terms of their current contracts, so I would not want them to lose those contracts.
The hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) made a valuable and insightful contribution. I pay tribute to him and to his Select Committee for the report that they published this morning, which is a valuable contribution to the debate that will help to inform the Government's decisions when they are eventually taken.
My hon. Friend the Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) made a valuable contribution. He spoke in particular of the threat to small family-run businesses. On the basis of his constituency experience, he described the extent of the personal service and commitment offered by community pharmacists to their customers, which went far beyond the call of duty and the normal requirements of their job.
Lastly, we heard the speech of the hon. Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham). He may talk about brass neck, but I remind him that a Labour Government are considering changes to a system introduced by a Conservative Government that has provided proper protection to our community pharmacists.

321
The future of the community pharmacy is crucial for communities right across the country. Local town and village centres alike are under threat from the Government in a way that we have never seen before. Local post offices are disappearing as part of a programme to close a total of 3,000 outlets, after five years of the Government's gross mishandling of the Post Office.
The current proposals pose risks to another cornerstone of our local communities. All over the country, millions of people, especially the elderly, depend on the chemist's shop for the drugs that they need, as well as for a word of friendly advice and assistance. Without those shops, many elderly people would struggle to reach the larger, more distant outlets that would inevitably take over.
The hon. Member for Wakefield asked about the free market. The free market has a clear and important place in our society, but some parts of our local economy serve a social need and we jeopardise them at our peril. The Opposition would be deeply concerned if the Government made proposals that would lead to a reduction in the excellent services or accessibility currently provided by our community pharmacies.
Gregory Barker: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the Labour Government, with all the zeal of a new convert to the free market, listen disproportionately to the voice of big business—the multinationals and the big players—and that the voice of the legion of small community businesses will go unheard?
Chris Grayling: It is very much my hope that, when we hear the Government's eventual verdict, that proves not to be the case. I hope that there is no sting in the tail. We want this issue to be resolved. The OFT report has been rejected already by the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly and in Northern Ireland. A substantial majority of Members have very clearly set out their views on the issue. Most of us have submitted petitions signed by thousands of people, representing the views of our local communities and saying that we do not want these changes to happen. It is time that the issue was laid to rest once and for all—time to give back stability to our pharmacy industry.
We have heard from hon. Members this evening that the OFT concluded from its work that removing restrictions on entry into the community pharmacy market would give greater choice to consumers. Of course, there is a strong argument that some people, such as hon. Members—professional, mobile people who are able to collect prescriptions on Saturday mornings when we do our shopping—would benefit greatly from more supermarket pharmacies, but such policy changes should not be directed primarily towards people like us. Will the elderly and young families without easy access to transport—perhaps the family car has been taken to a place of work during the day—still be able to gain easy access to pharmacies? Such things will be much less certain if these changes come to pass.
The ability of small, local pharmacies to withstand the pressures that deregulation and competition would bring lies at the heart of the debate. The message that I
322
am getting from my own constituency—other hon. Members are getting the same message from theirs—is that local community pharmacists believe that their business will disappear if the supermarkets open new outlets and, as a result, local services will disappear although people need them.
David Taylor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Chris Grayling: I will not give way now because I only have a couple of minutes left.
We are not talking about a free market in which lower prices will lead to growing sales and competition will improve and increase service standards for all. We are dealing with a tightly regulated and restricted market, where smart business practices cannot increase the size of the available cake. Local pharmacists derive the vast majority of their income—80 per cent. in many cases—from their work dispensing on behalf of the NHS, so they are much more like sub-contractors than retailers. They provide a service to our health service; they are not a part of the retail market, which is the point that the OFT investigators missed.
The danger is that, if a major supermarket opens a local pharmacy, the prescription business that it takes from other pharmacies will come straight off their sales. The risk is that we end up moving around the pieces of the cake and that the loser is the local village or town centre and the local pharmacy, but the ultimate losers are the elderly and those without transport, who will find those services less available to them. It is extraordinary that the OFT report does not seem fully to recognise that risk.
The report suggests that abolishing the control of entry rules would not lead to a substantial reduction in the number of pharmacies, but that is not the case, as I know from my own constituency, where several local pharmacies would disappear if one supermarket in particular opened a pharmacy. That view was reinforced by the evidence contained in the Select Committee report this morning. The Select Committee's verdict was quite clear: community pharmacies will disappear if the control of entry regulations disappear as well.
Of course, the risk is not just to pharmacies. In many rural areas, there are no local pharmacies; instead patients receive their drugs through dispensaries in their local GP practices. Britain's dispensing doctors are as vulnerable to such changes as community pharmacies, and the loss of their dispensaries in rural areas with little public transport could be disastrous for the elderly.
Of course, pharmacists are a vital part of our health service. They are a core part of the Government's health strategy and part of the NHS plan. They are highly professional, experienced people, with considerable medical knowledge and expertise to use on behalf of the NHS. Local pharmacies could take pressure off GPs and other parts of the NHS by providing the first port of call for minor ailments more often than is the case today, but we will not be able to reap that possible benefit if we lose neighbourhood pharmacies.
Our community pharmacists are an unsung part of our health service. They are health care professionals, not retailers. They have skills that have historically been underused. They are also a vital support to millions of

323
elderly patients. They are a cornerstone of local shopping parades and local shopping centres, particularly at a time when the great Post Office disaster is robbing so many of those centres of their local post office branch.
If the Government get the decisions on this issue wrong, they will do untold damage to communities around the country and to people who depend on the services that those community pharmacies provide. The message from the House should be clear: we value our community pharmacies and we do not want to lose them.
I commend the motion to the House.
6.50 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): We have been discussing an extremely important issue today, and community pharmacists and patients have been ill-served by the churlish way in which the main Front-Bench spokesman opened the debate and approached what is clearly a matter of concern to many of our constituents. His attitude is in marked contrast to that of some of his colleagues, particularly the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) and the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), whom I thank for their support and welcome. Their contributions were much more thoughtful than that of the Opposition's main spokesman.
I completely understand the conviction and passion with which Members have spoken in support of community pharmacies, and I know that many Members will have personal experience of the excellent work done by pharmacists, the advice that they give, the services that they provide, and the confidence and trust that patients have in them, as was well illustrated by my hon. Friend the Member for Leigh (Andy Burnham).
Brian Cotter: I very much support what the Minister said about the Conservative Front-Bench. Notwithstanding that, will she take on board the serious concern expressed by the British Medical Association, the Patients Association and the Health Committee about the report? We are looking for a response from the Secretary of State, which will be critical, and we are hooking for that soon.
Ms Winterton: Certainly. As I was saying, I am sure that we all have relatives who have benefited from the personal touch of community pharmacists.
Right hon. and hon. Members have raised many points in the debate today. The hon. Member for Romsey (Sandra Gidley) brought her experience as a pharmacist to the Chamber, and spoke particularly about the issue of pharmacy services in supermarkets. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) for his welcome to me and for his comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I thank him for all the work that he does on the Health Committee and the work that has been clone today in terms of the publication of the report on pharmacy services. It is an excellent report, which has been of great benefit to me in the short time that I have been in this job. I have been able to read about some of the background and to consider the way in which the
324
report acknowledges that much of the evidence that was submitted suggested that reform of the current system of control of entry may be necessary, while at the same time calling for reforms to take account of the wider role of pharmacies within the NHS. I assure members of the Committee that their report will be studied extremely carefully.
As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry said, the OFT report provided an extremely useful analysis of the current market and highlighted the need for reform of the present regime. As many Members have pointed out, however, the service provided by community pharmacists cannot just be seen in the context of competition.
I would completely endorse that approach, and the report also needs to be seen in the context of our firm intention to see an increased role for community pharmacists in providing services to NHS patients, in using their skills and talents to better effect and in helping patients get the very best from their medicines.
Much of our approach was set out in our "Pharmacy in the Future" programme, which was published three and a half years ago and continued by my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), who is now Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs. I pay tribute to him for the way in which he worked with all those involved to take the policy forward.
Many hon. Members have asked for examples of how services might be improved. The local pharmaceutical service is a key example of how services might look in the future. They will not only help to deliver an improved service for people with extra needs—especially the chronically sick and disabled—but will allow pharmacists to extend the type of work that they cover. We certainly want pharmacies to work more closely with GPs and other prescribers, and the new pharmacy contract and the potential new GP contract, along with new primary care trust initiatives, can all provide opportunities for the minor ailment clinics that hon. Members have mentioned repeat dispensing, supplementary prescribing and even independent prescribing. These are all issues to explore, as is increasing training so that pharmacists can become supplementary prescribers and are soon able to prescribe medicines at NHS expense in partnership with hospital doctors or GPs.
Ms Winterton: Our clear intention is for pharmacy to be recognised as a full contributor to primary care services, the first port of call for patients and consumers in discussing everyday health problems and a key driver in helping to reduce health inequalities. Those principles will frame our response, a response that delivers a balanced package of measures, promoting quality, choice and competition, but in the context—let me re-emphasise this—of the wider health policy objectives. It is a package that recognises pharmacy's place and ensures that it makes a full contribution to a 21st-century health service.
In the next few weeks, we will publish our response to the OFT report, as outlined by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State earlier. Secondly, we will publish the new draft framework for the new national pharmacy contract. The Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating

325
Committee is about to canvass its members on the outline proposals and we will be discussing with the committee later this year the new remuneration regime to support that. Our aim remains to see the framework in place by April 2004. Thirdly, we will publish a consultation paper that will build on the vision set out three and a half years ago for pharmacy. It will take stock of progress and put forward new ideas and new concepts for the future of community pharmacy. We will certainly, as requested, give the House every opportunity to debate these proposals.
The Labour Government have increased investment in the NHS by a third over the next three years. Despite everything that the Opposition have said today, the Conservative party would cut investment in the NHS by 20 per cent. This Government believe in a health system based on need and not ability to pay, and in a health service for all and not just a privileged few.
I understand some of the concerns raised today, but I can assure the House that the Government want to see a community pharmacy service that is high quality, convenient for patients and makes full use of the skills and professionalism of community pharmacists. There will be reforms but those reforms—
David Maclean rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
The House divided: Ayes 197, Noes 338.

Division No. 240]

[6:59 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Burt, Alistair

Allan, Richard

Butterfill, John

Amess, David

Cable, Dr. Vincent

Arbuthnot, rh James

Calton, Mrs Patsy

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Cameron, David

Bacon, Richard

Campbell, Gregory (E Lond'y)

Baldry, Tony

Carmichael, Alistair

Barker, Gregory

Cash, William

Baron, John (Billericay)

Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

Barrett, John

Beggs, Roy (E Antrim)

Chidgey, David

Beith, rh A. J.

Chope, Christopher

Bellingham, Henry

Clappison, James

Bercow, John

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Beresford, Sir Paul

Collins, Tim

Blunt, Crispin

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Boswell, Tim

Cotter, Brian

Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

Curry, rh David

Bottomley, rh Virginia (SW Surrey)

Davey, Edward (Kingston)

Davies, Quentin (Grantham & Stamford)

Brake, Tom (Carshalton)

Brazier, Julian

Davis, rh David (Haltemprice & Howden)

Breed, Colin

Brooke, Mrs Annette L

Djanogly, Jonathan

Browning, Mrs Angela

Dodds, Nigel

Bruce, Malcolm

Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

Burnett, John

Dorrell, rh Stephen

Burns, Simon

Doughty, Sue

Burnside, David

Duncan, Alan (Rutland)

Burstow, Paul

Duncan, Peter (Galloway)

326

Duncan Smith, rh Iain

Pickles, Eric

Evans, Nigel

Portillo, rh Michael

Ewing, Annabelle

Price, Adam (E Carmarthen & Dinfwr)

Fabricant, Michael

Fallon, Michael

Prisk, Mark (Hertford)

Field, Mark (Cities of London & Westminster)

Pugh, Dr. John

Randall, John

Flight, Howard

Redwood, rh John

Flook, Adrian

Reid, Alan (Argyll & Bute)

Forth, rh Eric

Rendel, David

Foster, Don (Bath)

Robathan, Andrew

Fox, Dr. Liam

Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

Francois, Mark

Robinson, Mrs Iris (Strangford)

Gale, Roger (N Thanet)

Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

Garnier, Edward

Rosindell, Andrew

George, Andrew (St. Ives)

Ruffley, David

Gibb, Nick (Bognor Regis)

Russell, Bob (Colchester)

Gidley, Sandra

Salmond, Alex

Goodman, Paul

Sanders, Adrian

Gray, James (N Wilts)

Sayeed, Jonathan

Grayling, Chris

Selous, Andrew

Green, Damian (Ashford)

Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

Green, Matthew (Ludlow)

Shepherd, Richard

Greenway, John

Simmonds, Mark

Grieve, Dominic

Simpson, Keith (M-Norfolk)

Gummer, rh John

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

Hammond, Philip

Harris, Dr. Evan (Oxford W & Abingdon)

Smyth, Rev. Martin (Belfast S)

Soames, Nicholas

Hawkins, Nick

Spicer, Sir Michael

Hayes, John (S Holland)

Spink, Bob (Castle Point)

Heald, Oliver

Spring, Richard

Heath, David

Stanley, rh Sir John

Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

Steen, Anthony

Hendry, Charles

Streeter, Gary

Hermon, Lady

Stunell, Andrew

Hogg, rh Douglas

Swire, Hugo (E Devon)

Holmes, Paul

Syms, Robert

Horam, John (Orpington)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Howard, rh Michael

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Hunter, Andrew

Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

Jack, rh Michael

Taylor, Dr. Richard (Wyre F)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Jenkin, Bernard

Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

Johnson, Boris (Henley)

Thurso, John

Key, Robert (Salisbury)

Tonge, Dr. Jenny

Kirkbride, Miss Julie

Tredinnick, David

Knight, rh Greg (E Yorkshire)

Trimble, rh David

Laing, Mrs Eleanor

Turner, Andrew (Isle of Wight)

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Tyler, Paul (N Cornwall)

Lansley, Andrew

Tyrie, Andrew

Laws, David (Yeovil)

Viggers, Peter

Leigh, Edward

Walter, Robert

Lewis, Dr. Julian (New Forest E)

Waterson, Nigel

Liddell-Grainger, Ian

Watkinson, Angela

Lilley, rh Peter

Webb, Steve (Northavon)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Weir, Michael

Loughton, Tim

Widdecombe, rh Miss Ann

Luff, Peter (M-Worcs)

Wiggin, Bill

McIntosh, Miss Anne

Willetts, David

Maclean, rh David

Williams, Hywel (Caernarfon)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Williams, Roger (Brecon)

Malins, Humfrey

Willis, Phil

Maude, rh Francis

Wilshire, David

Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

May, Mrs Theresa

Winterton, Sir Nicholas (Macclesfield)

Mercer, Patrick

Moss, Malcolm

Wishart, Pete

Murrison, Dr. Andrew

Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

Oaten, Mark (Winchester)

Young, rh Sir George

O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

Younger-Ross, Richard

Ottaway, Richard

Paice, James

Tellers for the Ayes:

Paisley, Rev. Ian

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan and

Paterson, Owen

Mr. Mark Hoban

327

NOES

Adams, Irene (Paisley N)

Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

Ainger, Nick

Cummings, John

Ainsworth, Bob (Cov'try NE)

Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack (Copeland)

Allen, Graham

Anderson, rh Donald (Swansea E)

Cunningham, Jim (Coventry S)

Anderson, Janet (Rossendale & Darwen)

Cunningham, Tony (Workington)

Dalyell, Tam

Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

Darling, rh Alistair

Atherton, Ms Candy

Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

Austin, John

Davidson, Ian

Bailey, Adrian

Davies, rh Denzil (Llanelli)

Baird, Vera

Dawson, Hilton

Banks, Tony

Dean, Mrs Janet

Barren, rh Kevin

Denham, rh John

Battle, John

Dhanda, Parmjit

Bayley, Hugh

Dismore, Andrew

Beard, Nigel

Dobbin, Jim (Heywood)

Begg, Miss Anne

Dobson, rh Frank

Bell, Stuart

Donohoe, Brian H.

Benn, Hilary

Doran, Frank

Bennett, Andrew

Dowd, Jim (Lewisham W)

Benton, Joe (Bootle)

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

Berry, Roger

Eagle Maria (L'pool Garston)

Betts, Clive

Edwards, Huw

Blackman, Liz

Efford Clive

Blears, Ms Hazel

Ellman Mrs Louise

Blizzard, Bob

Ennis Jeff (Barnsley E)

Borrow, David

Farrelly, Paul

Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

Fisher Mark

Bradshaw, Ben

Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

Brennan, Kevin

Flint, Caroline

Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

Flynn, Paul (Newport W)

Browne, Desmond

Follett, Barbara

Bryant, Chris

Foster, rh Derek

Buck, Ms Karen

Foster Michael (Worcester)

Burden, Richard

Foster Michael Jabez (Hastings & Rye)

Burnham, Andy

Byers, rh Stephen

Foulkes, rh George

Caborn rh Richard

Francis, Dr. Hywel

Cairns, David

Gapes, Mike (llford S)

Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

Gardiner, Barry

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Gerrard, Neil

Caplin, Ivor

Gibson, Dr. Ian

Casale, Roger

Godsiff, Roger

Caton, Martin

Goggins, Paul

Cawsey, Ian (Brigg)

Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

Challen Colin

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Chaytor, David

Hain, rh Peter

Clapham, Michael

Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

Clark, Mrs Helen (Peterborough)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

Clark, Dr. Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hamilton, David (Midlothian)

Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

Hanson, David

Clarke, rh Tom (Coatbridge & Chryston)

Harman, rh Ms Harriet

Harris, Tom (Glasgow Cathcart)

Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

Havard, Dai (Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

Clelland, David

Clwyd, Ann (Cynon V)

Healey, John

Coaker, Vernon

Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

Coffey, Ms Ann

Hendrick, Mark

Cohen, Harry

Hepburn, Stephen

Coleman, Iain

Heppell, John

Connarty, Michael

Hesford, Stephen

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Hewitt, rh Ms Patricia

Cook, rh Robin (Livingston)

Heyes, David

Cooper, Yvette

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Corston, Jean

Hinchliffe, David

Cousins, Jim

Hodge, Margaret

Cranston, Ross

Hoey, Kate (Vauxhall)

Crausby, David

Hope, Phil (Corby)

Cruddas, Jon

Hopkins, Kelvin

Cryer, Ann (Keighley)

Howarth, rh Alan (Newport E)

328

Howarth, George (Knowsley N & Sefton E)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Marshall-Andrews, Robert

Howells, Dr. Kim

Martlew, Eric

Hughes, Beverley (Stretford & Urmston)

Meacher, rh Michael

Merron, Gillian

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Michael, rh Alun

Humble, Mrs Joan

Miliband, David

Hurst, Alan (Braintree)

Miller, Andrew

Hutton, rh John

Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)

Iddon, Dr. Brian

Moffatt, Laura

Illsley, Eric

Moonie, Dr. Lewis

Ingram, rh Adam

Moran, Margaret

Irranca-Davies, Huw

Morgan, Julie

Jackson, Glenda (Hampstead & Highgate)

Morley, Elliot

Morris, rh Estelle

Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

Mountford, Kali

Jamieson, David

Mudie, George

Jenkins, Brian

Mullin, Chris

Johnson, Alan (Hull W)

Munn, Ms Meg

Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Murphy, rh Paul (Torfaen)

Jones, Kevan (N Durham)

Naysmith, Dr. Doug

Jones, Lynne (Selly Oak)

Norris, Dan (Wansdyke)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

Jowell, rh Tessa

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Joyce, Eric (Falkirk W)

O'Hara, Edward

Keeble, Ms Sally

O'Neill, Martin

Keen, Alan (Feltham)

Osborne, Sandra (Ayr)

Keen, Ann (Brentford)

Owen, Albert

Kemp, Fraser

Palmer, Dr. Nick

Khabra, Piara S.

Perham, Linda

Kidney, David

Picking, Anne

Kilfoyle, Peter

Pickthall, Colin

King, Andy (Rugby)

Pike, Peter (Burnley)

King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green & Bow)

Plaskitt, James

Pollard, Kerry

Knight, Jim (S Dorset)

Pond, Chris (Gravesham)

Kumar, Dr. Ashok

Pope, Greg (Hyndburn)

Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

Pound, Stephen

Lammy, David

Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

Laxton, Bob (Derby N)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Lazarowicz, Mark

Prescott, rh John

Lepper, David

Primarolo, rh Dawn

Leslie, Christopher

Prosser, Gwyn

Levitt, Tom (High Peak)

Purchase, Ken

Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

Purnell, James

Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

Quin, rh Joyce

Love, Andrew

Quinn, Lawrie

Lucas, Ian (Wrexham)

Rammell, Bill

Lyons, John (Strathkelvin)

Rapson, Syd (Portsmouth N)

McAvoy, Thomas

Raynsford, rh Nick

McCabe, Stephen

Reed, Andy (Loughborough)

McCafferty, Chris

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

McCartney, rh Ian

McDonagh, Siobhain

Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

MacDonald, Calum

MacDougall, John

Robinson, Geoffrey (Coventry NW)

McFall, John

McGuire, Mrs Anne

Rooney, Terry

McIsaac, Shona

Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

McKechin, Ann

Roy, Frank (Motherwell)

McKenna, Rosemary

Ruane, Chris

Mackinlay, Andrew

Russell, Ms Christine (City of Chester)

McNamara, Kevin

McNulty, Tony

Ryan, Joan (Enfield N)

MacShane, Denis

Salter, Martin

Mactaggart, Fiona

Sarwar, Mohammad

McWalter, Tony

Savidge, Malcolm

Mahmood, Khalid

Sawford, Phil

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Sedgemore, Brian

Mallaber, Judy

Shaw, Jonathan

Mann, John (Bassetlaw)

Sheerman, Barry

Marris, Rob (Wolverh'ton SW)

Sheridan, Jim

Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

Short, rh Clare

329

Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

Singh, Marsha

Turner, Dr. Desmond (Brighton Kemptown)

Smith, rh Andrew (Oxford E)

Smith, rh Chris (Islington S & Finsbury)

Turner, Neil (Wigan)

Twigg, Derek (Halton)

Smith, Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

Tynan, Bill (Hamilton S)

Vaz, Keith (Leicester E)

Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

Vis, Dr. Rudi

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Ward, Claire

Soley, Clive

Wareing, Robert N.

Southworth, Helen

Watson, Tom (W Bromwich E)

Spellar, rh John

Watts, David

Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

White, Brian

Steinberg, Gerry

Whitehead, Dr. Alan

Stevenson, George

Williams, rh Alan (Swansea W)

Stewart, David (Inverness E & Lochaber)

Williams, Betty (Conwy)

Wills, Michael

Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

Wilson, Brian

Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

Winnick, David

Straw, rh Jack

Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

Stringer Graham

Stuart, Ms Gisela

Woodward, Shaun

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Woolas, Phil

Taylor, rh Ann (Dewsbury)

Worthington, Tony

Taylor, Dari (Stockton S)

Wrignt Anthony D. (Gt Yarmouth)

Taylor, David (NW Leics)

Wright, David (Telford)

Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

Wright, Tony (Cannock)

Timms, Stephen

Wyatt, Derek

Tipping, Paddy

Todd, Mark (S Derbyshire)

Tellers for the Noes:

Touhig, Don (Islwyn)

Jim Fitzpatrick and

Trickett, Jon

Charlotte Atkins

Question accordingly negatived.
Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 31 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House agrees that the OFT report on the "Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK" provides a useful analysis of the market impact of the current control of entry regulations on consumers and competition and highlights the need for the present regime governing pharmacies to be updated; favours change to open up the market and improve quality and access without diminishing the crucial role that community pharmacies play, especially in poorer areas; and supports the need for a balanced package of measures which plays to the strengths of community pharmacies and enhances the role of pharmacists in the modern NHS

Saltash Tunnel
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Ainger.]
7.13 pm
Mr. Colin Breed: I welcome the opportunity to raise in the House an issue that has been on and off the agenda for many of my constituents for the past 15 years. A little background history might be appropriate.
Saltash, in my constituency, which is also where I live, is an ancient borough that was a thriving community before Plymouth was even a collection of a few villages. It always depended on transport links, principally across the Tamar from Cornwall into England. Transport issues have therefore been important over the years. Saltash has become, almost, the mecca of civil engineering projects. We have the famous Brunel Royal Albert bridge, which introduced the railways into Cornwall. In more recent times, the Tamar road bridge was constructed, which was one of the first box girder bridges, and it has recently had additional lanes clipped on to the sides—an ingenious civil engineering project. We also have the Saltash tunnel, which is the subject of the debate tonight.
The Saltash tunnel is a three-lane tunnel—the only three-lane tunnel in Europe, I believe—because we have a three-lane bridge. When the proposal for a tunnel was first mooted, it did not receive universal acclaim, partly because of all the disruption, and partly because people did not want more transport coming through the ancient borough of Saltash. However, it was considered preferable to another bridge, so after a public inquiry it was decided that we would have a tunnel. There were public meetings at the time, and I recall one meeting at the guildhall at Saltash when the proposed contractors and designers of the tunnel came to tell us what would happen.
I distinctly recall someone in the audience at that meeting getting up and advising the contractors that she had lived in Fore street, Saltash, close to the proposed tunnel site, and that at the bottom of her garden was a well, which never ran dry. Even in the severest droughts, water was always available. That was not surprising. We had houses with names like Well Park house, and we had springs. It was clear that there was a considerable amount of water. She warned the contractors that if they proposed to build a tunnel there, they would have to be very careful about the water. The lady was well into her 70s or 80s and had huge experience, but regrettably the contractors took little notice. It is a pity that they did not.
The subsequent construction was a monumental problem. During construction, I had the opportunity of visiting and walking through the site. It was hot, dark, wet and noisy—one of the worst environments in which to work—but the principal problem was the water. Water flowed through the tunnel at an alarming rate while the rock and shale were being drilled. It was clear that water would be a considerable problem. After some two and a half years the tunnel was constructed and traffic flowed through it, as well as the water, although that was behind a lining which, at that time, was very attractive. There was good lighting and fans to get rid of the exhaust fumes, and everything seemed satisfactory.

331
Before the tunnel was officially opened by the then Secretary of State for Transport, Paul Channon, cracks began to appear in the lining only months after completion. Although the cracks were not problematic to begin with, water soon began to seep through them—not clean water, of course, but extremely dirty water, so the appearance of the tunnel gradually deteriorated. At that time, many of my constituents began to fear that the lining was going to collapse and that they were risking life and limb by going through the tunnel. Over a number of years, that has been shown comprehensively to be false; the structural integrity of the tunnel, which is almost a quarter of a mile long, is not in question.
I believe that the tunnel is structurally sound, but it looks very bad cosmetically. Despite continual washing down in the night in an effort to make it look better, it has, regrettably, not been a particularly good example of tunnel building. Neither is it a very good gateway into Cornwall, bearing in mind the fact that it is situated only a few hundred metres from the boundary. An awful lot people coming into Cornwall get a very nice first impression when they cross the Tamar bridge and look at the beautiful river, but many plunge into what must be one of the worst tunnels in the country, whose interior now resembles crazy paving.
As I said, the problem was first seen many years ago. When I served on the town and district councils, much correspondence took place between local councils, individual councillors, the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency to try to get to the bottom of the problems. Partly, they wanted the work to be redone in order to make the tunnel look right and to allay any more fears about its structural integrity. Principally, however, they wanted to deal with the fact that the tunnel was professionally designed and constructed, but began to demonstrate severe defects within a matter of months. That process went on for some years. I was involved in trying to get to the bottom of the matter, but nothing very much happened. We were fobbed off, no answers were forthcoming and the tunnel became progressively worse.
We are all grateful that a scheme has recently been proposed for relining the tunnel. It will have an attractive new inside skin to obscure the dismal-looking existing lining and we will have a nice and attractive entrance to Cornwall. Everyone is very pleased that that is happening, but many people are beginning to ask why it was not done many years ago. The issue has also raised in people's minds a number of other questions that I should like to put to the Minister. He may not be able to answer all of them, but if he cannot do so, perhaps he can write to me.
My first question is in the minds of many people who were living in Saltash and close by at the time of the tunnel's construction. Following the public inquiry, which involved much discussion and local knowledge about the wells, springs and other water, why did not the Highways Agency, design engineers and contractors take at least some time to think about the issue, instead of going blindly on? Was their knowledge so advanced that they could dismiss any local experience and knowledge?
Secondly, when construction had commenced and water was seen pouring through the tunnel—we are talking not about modest dampness, but about significant streams of water—why did not somebody
332
have a rethink and say, "This is an extraordinary amount of water; have we really taken proper precautions to make certain that it will be properly channelled away when construction has finished?"
Thirdly, when the tunnel was completed, but before it was officially opened, certain cracks appeared, as well as water pouring out. The problem was not as bad as it is now, but it was very noticeable. That happened very early on. Why were no reports requested about those defects? Why were no such reports commissioned and some sort of penalty clause invoked with the contractors? Surely, there must have been some sort of arrangement to ensure that if the tunnel, which cost quite a few million pounds, was defective in any way, it would be put right by those who designed or built it. Why, given that local councillors had raised those issues time and again over the years, was nothing done? Why did the Department of Transport and the Highways Agency merely dismiss everything and keep on saying that the tunnel was perfectly satisfactory in terms of its structural integrity, which no one doubted, and do nothing about the appalling cosmetic look of it?
Why is the report that was commissioned prior to the work being undertaken being kept so secret? I have asked to look at it, as the Minister knows. I understand that some of its contents may not be very helpful to the author and may provoke other action. However, we would be grateful for anything that can help us to understand why we are now in a position, 11 or 12 years later, of being forced to spend a considerable amount more taxpayers' money to rectify something that was apparent very early on when the tunnel was completed. Many of my constituents who have been close to this situation for some time find the whole affair very unsatisfactory.
Over the past 15 years, yes, we have got our tunnel, and yes, we have got an awful lot of traffic through it, but we have seen it progressively deteriorate before our eyes. We have felt ashamed of its condition when we welcomed people into Cornwall. Those people think of Saltash as the place with the dirty and cracked tunnel—not exactly the most endearing sight for people coming to spend their money in Cornwall. Many people in my town believe that although the work that is now being undertaken is extremely welcome—I emphasise that—it should nevertheless have been done some time ago and should not be at the expense of existing taxpayers, but charged to the original designers or the original contractors.
I accept that the tunnel is one of the civil engineering wonders of the world in that it is a three-lane tunnel. Most tunnels are either single-lane or double-lane. Its method of construction may at the time have been leading-edge technology, but we have leading-edge technology in the Royal Albert bridge, which is still standing. Although it is more than 100 years old, it still takes thunderous great trains across it. It is looking perfectly okay and will hopefully go on for a long time to come. The Tamar bridge has its so-called Nippon clipons—additional lanes that were constructed in a very difficult environment. They look right and seem to operate well. A tunnel would not seem to be in the same sort of league, yet for more than a decade we have

333
suffered from its inferior construction, and we are now being asked to pay for something that should already have been done by and charged to the contractors.
7.28 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I congratulate the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) on securing the debate and on the forceful way in which he made his points on behalf of his constituents. I shall gloss over some of his earlier comments about Saltash being the gateway to England. Of course, it is a fine old settlement, as we know, but—if I may tease him gently—his constituents move over the river into Devonport, my constituency, to find employment, as well as to do their shopping. He is right that Saltash is a fine town, and I am sure that he is very proud to represent it.
I shall start with some historical information to explain what lies behind the works that are being undertaken in the tunnel. Such was the Government's concern following the European tunnel disasters that the Prime Minister required that all United Kingdom tunnels should be assessed to ensure that fire, or a similar serious accident, would not lead to such loss of life and disruption. There were clearly lessons to be learned from the disasters. They included the need for modern and robust environmental control, television monitoring and smoke and firefighting methods. A review of fan and water control also took place.
As the hon. Gentleman said, Saltash tunnel is a single-bore, three-lane tunnel situated on the A38 trunk road below Saltash in Cornwall. It is approximately 410 m long and includes a 346 m bored tunnel section with an unreinforced concrete permanent lining. The Highways Agency is responsible for operating the A38 trunk road and the tunnel, maintaining them in good condition and carrying out any improvements.
Mott, Hay and Anderson—now Mott MacDonald—designed the tunnel and Balfour Beatty Construction Ltd. built it. It was opened to traffic in 1987. Its length exceeded 400 m, and Saltash was clearly a tunnel to be taken seriously. It is the only single-bore tunnel on the trunk road network and it also operates a tidal flow traffic management system. That permits two lanes for the morning Plymouth-bound traffic—all the people who leave Cornwall and come into Devon—and one lane against that flow for the out-bound traffic. That is switched after the morning peak flow for the rest of the day and during the night.
The tidal flow system operates in tandem with the newly widened Tamar bridge, which Cornwall county council and Plymouth city council own and manage jointly. The electronics and signs create additional maintenance problems in the confines of the single bore. Modern, state-of-the-art monitoring equipment is included in the current works to replace the 15-year-old, out-of-date systems that have become unreliable and expensive to maintain.
334
The Highways Agency is aware of the cracks in the tunnel walls. As the hon. Gentleman said, seepage of water through the concrete lining has caused unsightly staining, emphasised the cracking and led to public concern about the structural adequacy of the tunnel.
Mr. Paul Tyler: As the Minister knows, I use the tunnel regularly. Sometimes I have the misfortune to have to leave Cornwall and cross the border into his constituency in England. I hope that he will assure us that, although the tunnel will look much better cosmetically, there will be no further deterioration in the tunnel's structural integrity, which we will not be able to see because of the new lining. That is critical.
Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Gentleman has pre-empted my comments. The tunnel was constructed to last more than 100 years and the structure is intact and in good condition.
When the tunnel was designed, knowledge and technology was not as good as it is today. There was little experience of building such a tunnel. At the time, it was leading edge technology. It was built to the specifications of the Department of Transport, and although it was known that it would crack, neither the designers nor the Department anticipated the number of cracks that appeared and the amount of water that poured through. However, that is history.
The hon. Gentleman made specific points about the designers not taking note of local experience. I cannot comment on that because it happened more than 20 years ago. If voices had been heard, perhaps the tunnel would have been designed differently. However, if it had been designed to be totally watertight, the cost could have been so enormous that it prohibited construction. It was built to a budget and to serve a purpose.
No one doubts that the tunnel provides a useful bypass of the old Saltash town centre. When holiday traffic drove through in July, August and September, it clogged up that side of Plymouth and, of course, Saltash. The tunnel has been a valuable asset to the road network.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the technology at the time. It was perceived to be adequate, but the tunnel has subsequently leaked. However, the problem is cosmetic, not structural, and we now have to solve it. The tunnel is not falling apart.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether penalties should be imposed because of the cracks. The difficulty with that is that the tunnel was designed to specifications set out by the then Department of Transport, and it would be very difficult to show at law who was responsible. That is probably why it was decided not to take any further action at that time. He also mentioned a secret report. He has seen two very comprehensive reports on the tunnel, and I have to say to him that if I wanted to know anything about the state of the tunnel, I would refer to those reports. There is another report—which is largely an opinion—but I do not think that it would be helpful in the present situation. If it came into the public domain, it would certainly not help his constituents. I have seen it, and it would not take us any further forward in solving the problem that we now face.
Some 340 m of the total 410 m of permanent tunnel lining is made from unreinforced concrete, and shrinkage cracks began to appear shortly after

335
completion. Attempts to seal the cracks at that time were unsuccessful, and further cracks developed. Before proceeding with a refurbishment contract, the Highways Agency sought a second opinion on the tunnel's structural integrity. That resulted in the report from the Dr. G. Sauer Company, an international firm of tunnelling consultants, which was commissioned by the Highways Agency in June 1998 to assess the structural adequacy of the tunnel in its cracked state. A two-volume assessment report was submitted in March 2000—this is the report that the hon. Gentleman has seen, and I have to assure him that it will tell him everything that he needs to know—which concluded that the concrete lining should be structurally adequate for the design life of the tunnel. As I said, it was designed to have a life of nearly 100 years, and there is no question but that its integrity is good.
The report also confirmed that the leakage was a cosmetic problem, and identified appropriate refurbishments—some of which were necessary purely because of the age of the tunnel, and the normal wear and tear—and modernisation. In the assessment report is a statement, to which the hon. Gentleman has referred in previous correspondence, indicating that a separate report existed. That is the one that he calls the "secret" report. I can assure him that that confidential report will not take us any further forward.
In accordance with the Prime Minister's directive following the European tunnel disasters, and having accepted that the reports from the Dr. G. Sauer Company confirmed the structural integrity of the gunnel, the Highways Agency's work has concentrated on modernisation. It is important that we now look at the way forward. We could look back, and we could perhaps apportion blame, but I am not sure that that would be terribly helpful in the circumstances. The hon. Gentleman needs to know whether the tunnel is going to be fit for the purpose for which it was designed, and whether it will get holidaymakers and people travelling to work to and from their destinations. He also needs to know whether, as the gateway to Cornwall, it is going to look good. That is important in terms of people's perception of Cornwall—and of Devon, for that matter.
With a view to reducing the energy costs of lighting and the costs of cleaning, a specification for a high-standard lining has been produced. That will have the added advantage of covering up the unsightly staining while permitting easy access for the general and principal inspections that the agency carries out on all its structures from time to time. The maintenance service building at the western portal has been extended to cater for current health and safety requirements. The new lighting and ventilation fans will be positioned with a view to easier and cheaper maintenance. Drainage, both behind the tunnel walls and in the carriageway, will be upgraded.
Given the increased traffic volumes since construction, the current speed limit of 30 mph, introduced for the refurbishment contract, will be maintained to regularise traffic speed for the whole tidal flow section across the Tamar bridge and the Saltash tunnel. The potential for a speed-related accident in the
336
confines of a tidal flow single-bore tunnel is very great. Speed camera coverage over the length of the tunnel requires special cameras at precise locations. We have new speed cameras using what is called the "specs" system—they look like a pair of spectacles—which will be installed as an additional safety measure. To enable the smooth passage of trunk road traffic along the county roads during the night-time closures of the tunnel that will enable the refurbishment to be carried out, diversion arrangements were put in place in advance of the main contract. They involved capacity improvements at some junctions, traffic light installation, traffic monitoring equipment and electronic signing. They cost about £1.8 million, an investment in the hon. Gentleman's constituency that I am sure he does not oppose.
Those diversion routes will be used whenever future cleaning and other maintenance works are required in the tunnel, as has been the case since its construction. The improvements should also help to cater for the increased traffic that has been a feature since 1987, and for all the people who are going to view the Eden project and the other fine things that Cornwall has to offer nowadays besides a bucket-and-spade holiday. We all welcome the increased traffic that we have already seen and will see again in the summer.
Current maintenance costs run to about £500,000 a year. The new main contractor will carry them until the refurbishment is complete. The total cost of the refurbishment is expected to be about £8 million. Skanska was awarded a contract to refurbish the tunnel following an Official Journal advertisement and competitive tender. Both Skanska and the engineering consultants Symonds, designers for the refurbishment, won the contracts following a quality and price tender assessment. Sadly, since the awarding of the contract the specialist lining contractor has gone out of business, and delays were incurred during the search for a suitable alternative specialist. Tubosider of Italy, the specialist firm used for the Mont Blanc tunnel cladding, has now been retained by Skanska.
The implications of the delay, and the need for a smooth traffic flow through the tunnel during the holiday season, have been discussed with Skanska, Symonds and the Highways Agency. As a result of the delay, the works will not be finished until September.
The hon. Gentleman has raised an important issue, with which I am familiar. It is important to his constituency, to Cornwall more generally, and to Devon. Now, however, we must look forward. We have made a substantial investment in the Saltash tunnel, as we have all along the route. He must welcome the new bypass at Dobwalls that we have announced. Indeed, his constituency is gaining many new features thanks to the Government's work in running a successful economy and investing in the infrastructure that we need so much.
I hope that once the works are finished and we have surmounted the problems associated with the original design, we shall have a tunnel fit for the 21st century.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at eighteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. PETER ATKINSON in the Chair]

Christian Communities (Africa)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jim Murphy.]
9.30 am
Alistair Burt: I am delighted to have the opportunity to raise this subject today, but even more delighted to welcome the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to his post. His reappointment will be extremely popular in the House. He is unaware of the part that he played in my downfall and my years in the wilderness, but he may recall that his was one of the earliest results to be declared in the 1997 general election. Due to the size of the hon. Gentleman's majority—his was a safe Labour constituency—Peter Snow was unable to discern the national trend, but I knew full well that in my marginal seat it was doomsday for Burt. Seeing the hon. Gentleman before I went to the drill hall to receive the verdict from the good people of Bury, North told me all that I needed to know. Despite that, however, I never bore him a grudge. It is a great delight to see his return to the Front Bench and I am sure that all Members wish him well in his new post.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise the important issue of Christian persecution in Africa. Hon. Members will be aware that people in many parts of the world suffer a huge amount of persecution. People of many faiths and none find themselves facing discrimination or full-blown persecution in many countries. However, we have good reasons to consider the plight of Christian communities in particular. Some hon. Members here today may remember a Westminster Hall debate last year on violence against Christian communities in Asia, when the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew)—I am delighted to see him in his place—focused our attention on two reports published a few years ago that demonstrated that Christians suffer more persecution than any other religious group. He also reminded us that more Christians were killed because of their faith in the 20th century than in the previous 19 centuries.
In the continent of Africa, we can see several prominent examples of Christians taking the brunt of persecution, as I shall demonstrate in a moment. Before proceeding further, however, I want to make it clear that the persecution of Christians is closely linked to other human rights issues. I make no secret of my Christian faith, nor therefore of my deep concern for those who suffer persecution for their following of Jesus Christ. This morning is their brief moment in Westminster. I am also a long-standing member of Amnesty International. The religious and civil rights of the persecuted are indivisible and I raise the issues that affect Christian believers today as a symbol and in support of others who are persecuted.
2WH
In last year's debate, I made the following observation:
"If a state will not respect the most intimate beliefs of individuals, it is far less likely to respect other personal rights. Religious liberty can be seen as a benchmark for whether human rights are flourishing in general.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, I7 July 2002; Vol. 389, c. 95WH.]
That is as true now as it was then and it is worth reiterating. By standing up for the rights of persecuted religious groups, we are also helping to tackle other human rights abuses and to promote a more healthy respect for human rights throughout the world.
I draw attention to my sources. I am indebted to my friends in Christian Solidarity Worldwide for their painstaking research and careful verification of allegations. Their work is not easy and it is easy for them to fall prey to charges of hopeless religious bias or making serious but unverifiable allegations. Ministers support my view that they do not fall into such traps.
On 28 January, in relation to North Korea, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), told the Foreign Affairs Committee:
"I think there are very credible reports both from defectors and from Christian Solidarity Worldwide that suggest widespread and serious human rights abuses."
The hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle), when a Minister at the Foreign Office, said in a Commons debate that he wanted to continue to meet with Christian Solidarity Worldwide, as it had good contacts and valuable information.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has a religious freedom panel that represents many faiths. A representative of CSW, Alan Hobson, attended its last discussion, again verifying its good credibility with the Government and others. I am proud to pay tribute to Christian Solidarity India, which works to support Muslims with regard to the pressure that they feel from militant Hindus.
I make those points because I am acutely aware that what is said in Westminster on international issues resonates far beyond our shores and, as we shall be on difficult terrain during the debate, it is right to set out the credibility behind the sources of a number of comments. I have also used Amnesty's website for further confirmation of a number of issues.
In some cases that will be mentioned today, the perpetrators of persecution of Christians are of the Muslim faith. That does not mean that all the adherents of Islam worldwide act in the same way. Countless millions of Muslims live peaceably with their neighbours, just as those of other faiths and none do. However, where there are those who do not, it is dishonest and unjust not to call attention to the situation.
Those who wear the badge of Christ are not immune to such a charge. In recent times, the Christian militia in the Lebanon, the two sides in Northern Ireland and the members of the Church in South Africa who defended apartheid have not acted in peace, in truth or in His name. Let us be clear that the debate is not about singling out the members of a faith as persecutors, but about drawing attention to the failure of humanity, in whatever name, to recognise justice, tolerance and the freedom of religion and to defend the same.

3WH
The focus of the debate is Africa, which is a continent of extraordinary beauty and diversity. I was there over Whitsuntide with the hon. Members for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) and for Burnley (Mr. Pike). We returned to South Africa 17 years after our first visit and saw the extraordinary changes that had taken place in that country over the years. Africa has contained great civilisations and cultures and has a rich history, but it is clear that today's Africa is a continent in turmoil.
In many countries, there are substantial human rights abuses. Amnesty International's most recent report noted:
"The human rights situation remained serious throughout much of the continent."
It goes on to include more than 30 African countries where there are substantial human rights abuses, and that is excluding north Africa, which it groups with the middle east in a separate section.
The persecution of Christians in Africa takes place over a wide geographical area. The example of Eritrea helps to show why we are focusing on the plight of Christians in particular. In Eritrea, the most persecuted religious groups are newer Christian denominations: Pentecostals, charismatics and evangelicals. The debate is particularly timely as far as Eritrea is concerned, because during the first half of the year, the Eritrean Government have been clamping down heavily on those groups. I gather that the hon. Member for Stroud hopes to discuss the situation there.
Côte d'Ivoire is another country where religious issues have been overlooked. The widely publicised rebellion there late last year had major political and ethnic causes, but there was also a religious dimension, which was neglected by the media and Governments around the world. Many of the rebels had a strong Islamist aim in attempting to overthrow their Government, and they targeted people of other religions—chiefly Christians and animists. There is much evidence that those who follow traditional beliefs in Africa, such as animists, experience similar pressure to Christians under a number of regimes.
A number of sources that spoke to CSW about the persecution of Christians were traditional believers, not Christians. An eyewitness in the Côte d'Ivoire noted on 14 October 2002:
"Rebels … are conducting systematic killing of non-Muslims, Christians and supporters of other political parties".
Other first-hand accounts back that up.
An obvious example of religious violence in Africa is found in Sudan, where more than two million people have died in the bloody civil war that has raged since 1985. That war has a number of causes, including political, ethnic and economic ones, but religion is a hugely important factor. The National Islamic Front—NIF—regime has targeted Christians and animists in the south of the country and elsewhere, including the Nuba mountains. The regime has also targeted moderate Muslims, including the Beja Muslims in the east and the Fur Muslims in the west, because it does not consider them to be true Muslims. I shall say no more about that, however, as Sudan was the subject of a
4WH
major debate in the Chamber a few weeks ago, and my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) plans to cover the subject later.
Tanzania is not a country that one would automatically associate with religious violence. Last year, however, Gaeten Zimulinda, a Christian leader who was concerned about the activity of Christian fundamentalists, was brutally murdered in front of his wife and children. He had written repeatedly of his concern about Muslim extremists, some of whom had broken into and attacked churches. Muslim extremists are believed to be responsible for his murder. In Tanzania, those same extremists are also attempting to have strict Islamic law imposed. Several Muslims have also been victims at the hands of Government troops, which has added to the religious tensions in the country.
The religious dimension is also overlooked in Zimbabwe, although it is obviously not one of the main causes of the troubles there. Those causes are well known to the House. There is, however, a strong likelihood that when the Church in Zimbabwe speaks up for those opposed to the regime, as the Church has done worldwide, those who shelter or support political opponents of the President will be targeted. It is right that Christians worldwide draw attention to that and to say that they will be watching the situation carefully for the next few weeks and months. We pray, as everyone does, for a peaceful resolution of a situation that has cost countless lives and that is leaving an economy and a people adrift in a physical and metaphorical drought.
The fact that I can include Kenya in today's debate demonstrates the extent of the problem facing us. Kenya is a secular state that was once regarded as a model for the rest of Africa. There is, however, growing controversy about the country's new constitution. Islamist elements are campaigning hard for sharia law to be included as part of the constitution. There have been threats and warnings about what might happen if that wish is not granted.
Chad is another country in which the Christian community lives in fear. There have been numerous examples of discrimination and persecution in the past few years. They have not yet led to violence, but that is not a remote possibility. There has been a process of Islamicisation throughout much of the country, which according to reports, has been stepped up in recent years. In an interview, a Christian teacher said:
"If we react … there will be trouble because the Muslims are armed."
He also noted:
"Chad is a powder keg, just waiting to ignite".
Another source, a Christian leader, warns:
"Anything can be done to the Christians in the north and it will be ignored by the officials."
So far, Zimbabwe, Chad and Kenya have seen few instances of violence against Christian communities, but the warning signs are there, particularly in Chad and Kenya.
The debate concerns not only the violence that has already occurred, but the scenarios that may lead to violence. So often in the House, we have to deal with attempted cures long after situations have exploded into chaos and lawlessness. It would be best to deal more often in prevention before problems erupt. I hope that

5WH
the Minster will take these points on board when he and his colleagues consider their attitude to the countries concerned.
I want to devote the remainder of my speech to Nigeria, a country where problems exploded into violence long ago. In recent years, the historical background and ethno-religious composition of Nigeria have resulted in bouts of religious violence. The country is divided almost equally between Christians and Muslims: Muslims are mainly in the north and Christians are in the south. They each form about 45 per cent. of the population. For the reasons that I gave at the beginning of my remarks, it would be easy to claim that both sides are equally at fault. On closer examination, however, that does not appear to be the case.
On the whole, Christians and non-Muslims support Nigeria's secular status, seeing it as necessary in view of the religious divides in the country. For many Muslims, on the other hand, the separation of state and religion is unacceptable, since Islam is seen as encompassing all religious, political, social and cultural activity. It is vital that outside observers grasp that point, however unpalatable it may be.
As long ago as the early 1960s, a Muslim northern leader, the Sultan of Sokoto, raised religious tensions by vowing to
"dip the Quran into the Atlantic Ocean"—
in other words, to Islamicise the entire country. Some modern-day Muslims have attempted to fulfil that aim.
In 1986, the Nigerian Muslim leader, General Babangida, took the country into the Organisation of the Islamic Conference, despite the fact that Muslims are in a minority. That provocative decision caused inter-religious violence throughout the country.
The present bouts of violence started in 1999, when northern Muslim states began to impose sharia law. Some Nigerian Muslims openly admit that the ultimate aim is to impose full sharia law in a majority of Nigeria's 36 states. Once they have that majority they can challenge the country's constitution and, eventually, declare Nigeria a fully Islamic state, rather than the secular one that it is, by consent, now. That should be of deep concern to anyone who is interested in Nigeria's future welfare. The implementation of sharia has had disastrous consequences: more than 6,000 people are said to have died in religious and ethnic clashes arising from confrontations over sharia law since 1999.
In the states where sharia law has been implemented, there have been other worrying developments, affecting not only religious liberty but wider human rights. Islam is promoted to the detriment of other religions such as Christianity and animism.
Although it was claimed that sharia law would apply only to Muslims, which is a matter of religious choice and freedom with which we can have no quarrel, that has not proved to be the case. For example, many Christian women in northern states have been put under intense pressure to convert to Islam. When the cases come to court—for example, if a girl has been coerced into marrying a Muslim—the courts are usually unsympathetic to the woman. Furthermore, during a fact-finding visit to Niger state in October 2002, Christian Solidarity Worldwide found that non-Muslims are continually brought before sharia courts by the police, without being offered the choice of systems of justice to which they are entitled by law.
6WH
There have been several instances of Christians being killed after accusations of having offended against either the Sharia or Islam generally. In one of the worst incidents on 6 June 2002, a Christian police officer was clubbed to death by a mob in Katsina. He had warned a Muslim preacher not to incite religious hatred. The preacher, fearing arrest, accused the police officer of having trampled the Koran and incited the crowd to murder him.
Under sharia law, punishments are advocated—including stoning, flogging and amputation of limbs—that constitute a violation both of the Nigerian federal constitution and of the Government's obligations as a signatory to the United Nations convention against torture. Another area of concern is the discriminatory impact of sharia law on the lives of women. It is also the case that the majority of people who have been sentenced to punishment have been poor or disadvantaged, while criminals from the governing classes, such as embezzlers of state funds, have often gone unpunished.
There have been orchestrated attacks on Christian and animist/pagan communities in a number of states in Nigeria in the past few years. Some of the worst incidents have been in Plateau state. The combined population of the indigenous tribes—which practise a number of religions, but are predominantly Christian—forms a majority in Plateau state. However, each individual tribe is outnumbered by the Muslim Hausa Fulani settlers. According to many local Christian leaders, the Muslims have adopted the divide-and-rule tactics that in previous centuries eliminated Christianity in north Africa. The Hausa Fulani start to fight a particular indigenous tribe while being careful to claim that it is an ethnic, not religious disagreement. Sadly, all too often, international observers and Government Departments have been ready to take such assertions at face value.
Mr. Mark Francois: I am pleased to report that the Christian church in my constituency is in relatively good heart, and I suspect that many of my constituents will have considerable sympathy with my hon. Friend's argument. Does he agree that Her Majesty's Government have a considerable role to play in liaising with the Governments of countries such as Nigeria, to express our deep concern about these matters and to let them know that we remain ever vigilant about the treatment of Christians in their countries?
Alistair Burt: My hon. Friend and his constituents are correct. He anticipates a key point that I shall come to in my conclusion, when I consider the responsibilities of our Government. He is right to raise the fact that the Government have a responsibility and I am certain that the Minister will take the matter further.
During incidents such as those that I have described in Plateau state, Christians are killed, regardless of their tribal affiliation, while Muslims from indigenous tribes are left unmolested. That helps to demonstrate that the attacks are religious, rather than ethnic, in origin. One of the most shocking incidents in Plateau state was in the Wase area on 3 July 2002. Armed groups of Muslims attacked Christians, killing some 5,000 and displacing about 100,000. There is now no church building in Wase

7WH
town; all the churches were totally destroyed. At least 88 Christian villages were also destroyed during an orgy of violence that the state Government seemed powerless to bring to a swift end. It was reported that women were raped before being killed, while several younger children died as their heads were smashed against trees and walls. There are now only three Christian settlements remaining in Wase local government area. Kadarko, which has the most churches, suffers repeated attacks to this day.
Events in Wase since July 2002 demonstrate the manner in which the Hausa Fulanis and their fellow travellers take on one tribe at a time. At present, the main target in Wase is the Taroh, a tribe with the largest number of Christians in the area. During the attacks, Taroh Muslims have been left unmolested. That is one example of many that I could quote. The evidence I have discussed today helps to show that there is a major problem, which will not be resolved if its nature is not understood.
In 2001, the then Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), said in a written answer:
"The root causes of much of the conflict in northern Nigeria are long-standing differences between ethnic groups. These differences are over a range of issues, including control of territory and resources, and are not primarily religious."—[Official Report, 3 May 2001; Vol. 367, c. 736W.]
I do not believe that that is the case. That we cannot comprehend religious intolerance is not a reason for failing to observe intolerance and injustice in others. Therefore, I ask the British Government to recognise the fundamentally religious aspect to events in northern Nigeria.
Mr. Andy Reed: The hon. Gentleman said that he is keen for the Government to play a role in monitoring the persecution of Christians. Does he think that it would be helpful if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office desk officers had special training in recognising religious persecution in order to understand the difference between persecution and specific Christian persecution?
Alistair Burt: The hon. Gentleman has raised that matter before. I agree with him and the Minister will have heard his plea. There is a religious dimension to the issue which, from our vantage point in western Europe is easy to miss, but because it does not happen here in the same way as it might elsewhere is no reason to miss that dimension. There have been examples of religious intolerance that have led to conflict and violence in our continent too. I encourage the Minister to consider the hon. Gentleman's proposal carefully.
When the Government are making representations to the Government of Nigeria about the abuse of human rights in that country, the understanding of the nature of religious difference will be most useful. Then our Government, who repeatedly stress that religious liberty and human rights are at the heart of their foreign policy, can urge the Nigerian Government to ensure the primacy of their federal constitution by challenging the constitutionality of the imposition of full sharia law in
8WH
the 12 northern states. The Nigerian Government can also be urged to ensure that the rights of non-Muslims in the northern states are respected, and that non-Muslim establishments, families or individuals receive adequate compensation for losses or damages during episodes of inter-religious violence.
In the brief time available—I am grateful to the House for giving me as much time as it could—I have attempted to give an overview of the plight of Christian communities in a number of African countries. In some of them, violence has already claimed many lives; in others, the countries are in danger of descending into violence unless steps are taken to avoid it. There are many causes of violence in Africa, as there are in other parts of the world, and there are also many victims. The debate has focused on one cause of violence, religious persecution; one fundamental right, the right to worship freely; and one vulnerable community, the Christian community. It does not seek to minimise other causes, rights or communities and I look forward to debates tackling other aspects of the problems of violence and injustice. However, I hope that this debate will be of use within its remit.
I believe in healthy, multi-faith communities, where people can live side by side in religious harmony. The concepts of justice and religious liberty are fundamental to achieving that, and indivisible. In each of the countries I have discussed, there is a strong case for saying that those fundamental concepts need to be more widely implemented. The methods used to encourage that will vary from country to country. In Eritrea, it would mean implementing the intended constitution, which guarantees religious liberty, whereas in Nigeria it would mean upholding the constitution that is already in place. I urge the Government to make strenuous efforts to help such countries and their peoples to establish one of the most basic of all human rights: the right to worship freely.
9.54 am
Mr. David Drew: I am delighted to take part in this debate—the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) has done us a great service. I preface my remarks by welcoming the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), back to his position in government. I look forward to his taking part in more debates in future, and I am sure that there will be a more ethical framework to our foreign policy from now on.
I wish to talk largely about Eritrea, which the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire referred to briefly; I agree with everything that he said about other parts of Africa and take a particular interest in Sudan. We had a good debate a few weeks ago about Sudan, in which we talked about the religious context, which can not be underestimated in considering that dreadful conflict.
In talking about Eritrea, I have some expertise in that I visited Ethiopia with the Inter-Parliamentary Union last year under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Tewkesbury (Mr. Robertson). It is fair to say that the region is an unhappy part of the world. It is sad that, having achieved their liberation from the Derg, Eritrea and Ethiopia have spent an awful lot of time in conflict

9WH
with one another, in part as a result of the tensions caused by the replacement regime. That conflict has come to a head in the long-running dispute over the town of Badme. During my visit I talked to the British general who is responsible for trying to bring the two parties together. It may interest hon. Members to know that the British general in question is General Gordon—only the British Army could have as a current general the grandson of the General Gordon who got his comeuppance in Khartoum, but real life is always better than fiction, as they say. We are playing our part in that respect.
I am eternally grateful to my friends in Amnesty International, particularly those in the mid-Gloucestershire group, who keep me regularly informed of some of the abuses. To give a flavour of what is happening, Eritrea is a diverse country, like the rest of Africa. The population is equally divided between Christians and Muslims. Among the Christians there are Coptic, Ethiopian, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Lutheran Protestant churches, and also more minor groups.
There is a very strong Muslim tradition in parts of the country, as well as traditional religions, particularly in the Kunamas community, which practises a religion centred around the worship of Anna. The country is therefore complex. However, it is not known that under Issaias Afewerki, who is a very strong leader—I put it no more definitively than that—there is a recent history of repression in Eritrea. That is particularly borne out in the way that the Christian community has been treated, which has included a number of major human rights abuses.
When the Eritrean state was set up, a very liberal constitution was drafted which promotes religious, political, social and economic rights. Included in that are the basic freedoms, such as freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and so on. Tragically, however, the conflict with Ethiopia has resulted in the curtailment of many of those freedoms. That in turn has stunted democratic development in the country and led to a failure to implement the real meaning of the constitution. Dissidents have been arrested and some have disappeared. Journalists, politicians and students are targeted if they are deemed less than entirely loyal to the regime.
The main theme of today's debate—in keeping with the excellent presentation by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire—is religious persecution. The ruling Popular Front for Democracy and Justice party is fearful of anything that is outside its control, including religion. It is particularly wary of Muslim extremists and newer Christian denominations. Restrictions brought in by the Government include a ban on involvement in politics for religious organisations, and severe restrictions on international non-governmental organisations in a bid to prevent any proselytism. The Government have also compared Pentecostal, charismatic and evangelical church members to extreme Islamists and branded them a danger to national security.
One of the most severe steps taken by the Government occurred last year. On 21 May 2002, the PFDJ issued a decree ordering the closure of all churches not belonging to the Orthodox, Roman Catholic or evangelical Lutheran denominations.
10WH
According to sources, more than 36 churches have so far been closed. Those include Kale Hiwot, a church affiliated to Serving in Mission, an evangelical Protestant organisation with a history in the region that can be traced back to 1893. Thus it can be seen that even churches that have been around for over a century are not safe. It is now impossible for those Christians to meet, even in private homes.
Since then, the pressure exerted by the PFDJ Government has increased further. During January 2003, 50 members of the charismatic Rhema Church were jailed for 10 days following a police raid on a new year celebration in Asmara. The period from mid-February to April this year was marked by severe repression. The NGO Compass Direct reported that a total of 170 Christians had been jailed, beaten and threatened with death by security operatives, following five separate police raids on worship services, wedding ceremonies and other gatherings. The police jailed men, women and children for practising a new religion. Most were held for more than two weeks without being formally charged.
One group was held for 15 days in metal containers designed to serve as severe punishment cells, while another group witnessed their pastor being humiliated, tortured and forced to walk along sharp rocks for half an hour. Moreover, people who bailed out jailed relatives were forced to sign a document stating that the bailed prisoner would be liable for execution if he or she were to be caught at any subsequent church meeting. On 18 April this year, members of the Mesert Christos Church in Asmara were held in detention for an entire day and, upon being released, were warned by the authorities never to meet again.
That repression continued throughout April. More than 56 Protestants from towns in the northern province of Sahel were forcibly conscripted following police raids, which occurred during working hours on 29 April. Most were health care and other professionals and the majority had already served their terms of military service. Subsequently, 36 members of Kale Hiwot Church were taken from their homes and work places to a military training camp. As they were led away, the police taunted their friends and relatives, saying that church elders were next in line for detention.
Even members of a permitted denomination are no longer safe from persecution in Eritrea. At the end of April, members of the evangelical Lutheran Church were celebrating Easter by singing hymns in the streets. However, they were confronted by an angry security service officer who informed them that such activities were forbidden to members of closed churches. On his being informed of their denomination, the officer accused the group of misusing the freedoms granted to their Church. Two young men stood their ground and were subsequently arrested. They were kept in detention for three days and warned severely against repeating the Easter tradition. That repression continues. Arrests of the members of the Rhema Church in Asmara have continued.
It is worth stressing that not all the persecution is aimed at Christian denominations, or even minority Christian denominations. However, it is especially violent against those minority Christian religions. Sections within the Orthodox Church are alarmed by the growth of what they consider heretical newer

11WH
denominations. They also resent the loss of members—particularly from younger age groups—to those denominations. Local sources report that persecution has been occurring for some time, resulting in people looking for alternative ways in which to pursue their faith. However, that is not freedom as we know it.
One of the significant aspects of the persecution emanating from the Orthodox Church is that the Church works closely with the state. The state gives backing to repressive actions taken by some in the Orthodox Church, and sometimes those actions appear to be co-ordinated. The Government of Eritrea, instead of co-ordinating repression with the Orthodox Church, should be ensuring that other denominations are protected from that repression.
There is continuing repression, particularly in the army, in which, partly as a result of the conflict with Ethiopia, a tradition had developed of support for several Christian denominations. Prayer meetings are now forbidden and attendance is punishable by imprisonment. Moreover, anyone found in possession of a Bible can face severe punishment. There are even reports that several young Christian soldiers were shot after being discovered reading the Bible.
Compass Direct recently reported that at least 77 soldiers, including 13 women and 16 married men, were jailed in Eritrea. All were Protestants and were jailed for refusing to deny their beliefs and return to orthodoxy. Most have now been incarcerated for more than a year, and all are denied contact with their relatives. It is reported that those held in Assab military prison have been put into 44-gallon drums and rolled in front of other prisoners, with the result that some have been partially paralysed. Other physical assault and torture has occurred, and several female prisoners have suffered sexual abuse.
Incredibly, the Government of Eritrea issued a blanket denial, stating that no groups or persons were persecuted in Eritrea for their beliefs or religion and that people were free to worship according to their beliefs. That flies in the face of all the evidence that I have outlined, and it is to be hoped that the British Government will have something to say about it—the Minister will have an opportunity to respond later. Moreover, the hon. Members who have spoken so far, including my hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed), might like to take up the matter of how such issues may be highlighted when dealing with Governments such as that of Eritrea.
I would like to thank Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which benefits us all in highlighting such issues, and particularly Dr. Alan Hobson who has helped in compiling some of the evidence.
Our Government have a great opportunity to take action. They have consistently argued that human rights, including religious liberty, are at the heart of our foreign policy. I hope, therefore, that they will make strong representations to the Government of Eritrea on the issue. In particular, they should tell the Eritrean Government that there is substantial evidence to contradict their claim, made on I May, that there is complete religious freedom in Eritrea.
12WH
The right to choose one's religion and to practise it freely is one of the basic human rights. That in itself would be a good reason to take issue with the Government of Eritrea on the question of religious liberty. As the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire said in his excellent speech, we should also monitor carefully what is taking place. As Christians, we should act in solidarity and draw attention to what is happening in parts of the world where people do not have religious freedom. I hope that we will do that as a result of today's debate.
10.8 am
Andrew Selous: It is a pleasure to take part in the debate this morning and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on securing it.
It is worth reminding ourselves that about 250 million Christians around the world are either persecuted for their faith or not free to practise it. That is a significant number, but we are perhaps accustomed to overlook it while enjoying our own religious freedom in the United Kingdom, and throughout the western world. I, too, pay tribute to Christian Solidarity Worldwide. It does excellent work in publicising the plight of our fellow Christians who suffer around the world, which would not otherwise come to light. I hope that this morning's debate will allow that information to flow to a wider audience.
I shall speak about three African countries where significant violence and persecution against Christians are already taking place, namely, Ethiopia, Côte d'Ivoire and Nigeria. I shall touch on aspects other than those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire. I shall also look briefly at Chad, Zimbabwe and Kenya, which are showing worrying signs that they, too, may be heading down a road that will lead to the significant persecution of Christian and other religious minorities. I hope that action can be taken before it is too late.
First, on Ethiopia, we can be encouraged and give thanks for the fact that freedom of religion is guaranteed under its constitution. However, it is worrying that, since the 11 September outrage, clashes between Muslims and Christians have escalated significantly. Not so long ago, a church in the town of Hargessa was destroyed, and three church leaders—Hanna Bekelle, Solomon Worku and Zewdnesh Bekele—were imprisoned and reported to have been beaten. In March 2002, two churches near Wello were destroyed and many Christians were attacked by Muslim mobs—we believe that some of those attacked were badly injured. A Muslim who converted to Christianity had his life threatened and was accused of apostasy; he was beaten and hospitalised, and had to take refuge in a police station.
It is important that we know what individuals are going through in Ethiopia because indications are that even if the Ethiopian Government were not behind the destruction of the church in Hargessa, they turned a blind eye to the incident. As a result, we have grave concerns about that country.
Côte d'Ivoire has been much in the news in France in the past year or so. Again, the extremely worrying reports that emanate from that country do not always

13WH
receive the media attention that they deserve. For example, the attempt by the Côte d'Ivoire Government to liberate the town of Bouake on 7 October 2002 failed, but we know that the rebels set about killing non-Muslim, predominantly Christian, groups there, while sparing the Muslim communities. That was not reported in the western media.
There are worrying signs of international Islamic influences working to bad effect in Côte d'Ivoire. It was reported in the French media that Colonel Gaddafi had been arming rebels in that country. Agence France Presse reported that, at the Organisation of African Unity summit held in Porto Novo in Benin in July 2000, Gaddifi addressed a meeting of more than 15,000 people in the Charles de Gaulle stadium. He exhorted them as follows:
"Africa must throw away the coloniser's religion. Christianity was imported in Africa in order to dominate us. You must increase your efforts to make Islam triumphant".
Colonel Gaddafi's reported involvement in Côte D'Ivoire should be seen in that light. Whatever our views about Colonel Gaddafi, he is a significant player in many African countries and the fact that he said that at such a large meeting is cause for concern. Photographs taken by reporters from Reuters and Agence France Presse showed many Muslim rebels sporting tee-shirts with the face of Osama bin Laden over Côte D'Ivoire, so there are worrying elements there, of which I am sure the Government are aware.
I shall add a few remarks to those that have been made about Nigeria. More publicity has been made available in the west about what is happening there, particularly between Christian and Muslim communities. What is worrying is the evidence that groups from outside the country go into Nigeria to foment the unrest. In the three major episodes of sharia-related unrest—in 1991, 1995 and 2000—non-Nigerian Muslims were present. They did not speak the local language, wore different clothes and headdresses, had different skin colours and sported either military uniform or the black clothes of the Islamic groups operating in the region; it is believed that they were from Chad, the Republic of Niger or Mali. Such movement between countries and across borders, fomenting violence within Africa, is extremely worrying.
In the massacre at Wase in July 2002, about 5.000 Christians were killed by Muslim extremists and 100,000 people were displaced. The bodies of the victims were mutilated and dismembered. Again, there is evidence that militiamen from Niger and Chad were involved. There have also been reports that the Emir of Wase, Alhaji Haruna Abdullah, was implicated in the violence. In October 2002, 40 Christians were killed during an attack on Fajul in Langtang south. Eye witnesses said that the militia were well armed and dressed in military uniform and, again, that several came from Niger and Chad.
In late October 2002, 58 Muslims were arrested in the Rikkos Damisa area. Some were from the Republic of Niger and Chad and they had significant weaponry including sophisticated automatic and semi-automatic guns, knives and machetes. Six Pakistani Muslims were arrested in Sagamu on 16 November 2002 and deported for inciting religious hatred. It is good to see that at least the Nigerian Government took action in that case. I am
14WH
not so clear about the action that they have taken as regards those coming in from Niger and Chad. Perhaps the Minister can enlighten us. So far as Nigeria is concerned, it is important that we realise that the response of the United Kingdom and the west should not be just to fly in the aid after massacres have taken place. We must look at prevention rather than cure and do all that we can to ensure that such incidents do not take place.
In Chad, the violence against Christians is not so severe but there are worrying warning signs that things could get worse. Chad is roughly 60 per cent. Muslim, the rest of the population being either Christian or of animist or pagan faith. Christians are being thrown into prison, often on trumped-up charges raised by Muslims against them, and are being pressed into forced labour. One Christian pastor was not allowed to drink from a particular well as a result of local Muslim pressure, and we understand that such low-level injustices are taking place all the time. As one local source put it, Chad is
"a powder keg, just waiting to ignite".
In Moundou in southern Chad, a church was closed in 2001 as a result of pressure by the local Muslim population, who said that it was interfering with the operations of the local mosque. Christian teachers tell us that there is open discrimination against Christians throughout the education system and we have heard several reports of fighters from Chad going to Nigeria and Sudan to foment religious unrest. Again, it is important to be aware of what is going on in Chad and do all that we can to prevent it from developing into a situation such as those in Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire, where, sadly, there is established and often repeated violence against Christian communities.
Zimbabwe has been mentioned, and it is important to pay tribute to the courageous stand taken by those such as the Catholic Archbishop Pius Ncube, who has bravely stood out against the Mugabe regime. Some people, such as John Makumbe of the university of Zimbabwe, believe that the Church could end up as one of the main focuses of opposition against the Government. We must be aware of the Church's position in Zimbabwe. For example, Christians were arrested purely for conducting a prayer walk within the country and I fail to understand how the Zimbabwean Government could have been worried or threatened by that activity.
The last country that I want to mention is Kenya, where a draft constitution is being drawn up as we speak. Just under 20 per cent. of the population is Muslim, so it is a minority, but Kenya's draft constitution includes proposals to entrench khadi or Islamic courts in the justice system. That would be a significant expansion of such courts' scope and power and we should consider the example of Nigeria, whose 1979 constitution established sharia law, which was perhaps the beginning of many of the problems since then.
A few months ago, on 25 April, about 2,000 Muslims protested in large gatherings around the country against any possibility that the Kenyan Government might back down from entrenching the Islamic courts in the constitution and threatened to balkanise Kenya, imposing sharia law in the local areas in which the Muslims are a majority of the population. Kenya is

15WH
extremely exercised about such issues following the recent bombings of the US embassy in Nairobi and the Israeli-owned hotel in Mombasa, and recently, if not currently, British Airways was not flying there because of the security risk.
Only a few days ago, three Christian churches in Bura-Tana, which is about 250 miles north-east of Nairobi, were destroyed, encouraged by someone whom Christian Solidarity Worldwide described as a cleric of a non-Christian faith. That is hard evidence of three churches being shut down in Kenya, so it is important to be aware of what is happening there. The last thing that any of us want is to be here in 10 years talking about Kenya in the way in which we are talking about Nigeria. If this morning's debate serves any purpose, I hope that part of that will be to flag up our concerns about Kenya so that the situation does not worsen as it has sadly done in Nigeria.
Finally, will the Minister say to what extent the Government are concerned about these issues when they negotiate with those countries and consider trade and aid deals? We hear much talk from the United States about most favoured nation status. That is a specific trade status that the US Government grant to those countries that pass certain tests on human rights, decency, respect for their populations and international good behaviour. To what extent are the Government mindful of those sorts of issues in the African countries that we have discussed in their negotiations with them?
10.26 am
John Barrett: First, I congratulate the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on a thoughtful and considered approach to the debate. I also welcome the Minister. I was unaware of his part in the hon. Gentleman's downfall, but in the short time that I have been in the House, I have found that it is wise to congratulate Ministers quickly because sometimes they move on at great speed.
We have heard today about several outrages and atrocities and about man's inhumanity to man, all of which should have no place in this world. We have also heard about examples of violence against Christian communities, in some cases because they are Christian and in others simply because they happen to be part of a wider community under threat. Violent attacks on any family, group or community in any society should be condemned, whether or not they are Christian. It is important to stress from the outset that it would be wrong to claim that violence against Christians is in any way worse than violence against members of other religions or those who have no particular faith.
Today's debate is a good opportunity to show that violence against Christian groups is often an indicator of the risks and threats under which others in the same society live. If the human rights of Christians are under threat, then so are the human rights of other groups in the same country. No one is safe where Christian communities in Africa are subject to violence. By its very nature, violence spreads, and potential victims cannot always be identified in advance. The vulnerable in society deserve protection when they are under threat. African countries often face problems of hunger,
16WH
conflict and HIV/AIDS and other diseases. To be threatened because of one's religious beliefs adds to the already high risk of day-to-day living.
Before I talk about specific problems in more detail, it is worth going back some years to see how little has changed since the days of the early missionaries such as David Livingstone, who was from my part of the country, and Dr. Robert Moffatt, who went to Africa in 1840. Violence was common then and in the 160 years since some things have not changed much. In those days, violence was sometimes linked to the slave trade, which still persisted on the east coast of Africa. Today, there are other reasons, and sometimes no apparent reason, for the violence perpetrated against Christian communities.
Sometimes, such violence is part of a wider conflict involving others. At other times, communities are specifically targeted because of their Christian beliefs and the work that they do. That violence has a double impact, because the work that is being done in health or education for the local community is often exactly what is required if the most vulnerable people, often children, are to have any chance of a brighter future.
Many hon. Members mentioned cases in Nigeria, Ethiopia, Tanzania, Eritrea, Sudan, Côte d'Ivoire, Zimbabwe, Kenya and Chad. I shall add other cases to that catalogue of outrages, ranging from the individual case up to full-scale war. In Ethiopia, there have been documented cases of elderly men and women suffering beatings, with some suffering permanent disabilities. In Maychew, violent demonstrations led to the burning of all Christian churches. On a larger scale, last October, an armed uprising left more than 270 people dead and 300 injured in Côte d'Ivoire. There have been many deaths when the mainly Muslim rebel soldiers who control the north battle the Government in the south, where Christianity dominates.
Ordinary people caught up in the violence—which has included the killing and kidnapping of a number of politicians—were shocked. One of the key factors is the amount of weaponry acquired from abroad. Our Government must play their part in restricting, where possible, the availability of weapons, including small arms, which were never intended for the defence of legitimate regimes.
A number of hon. Members have mentioned incidents in Wase, a town in northern Nigeria, where at least 500 people died in an outbreak of religious fighting. The total number of deaths is uncertain, but more than 5,000 have been reported. Stories abound of women and children being slaughtered, with many women being raped first. The number of horror stories is such that the authenticity of some cases has been called into question, but the sheer number of cases already raised today, and the authentication mentioned by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire, leave me in no doubt as to the scale of the problem.
Where do those people whose lives are turned upside down by this violence end up? Sometimes they end up in camps for displaced people. That often results in the risk of epidemics because of the lack of food, health care and adequate hygiene. The greatest disaster has occurred in Sudan, where more than two million lives were lost in a civil war spanning decades.

17WH
How has all that come about? There is no single answer, but world leaders must, if possible, head off other potential conflicts. One aspect that must be examined is the potential for increased conflict between the Islamic faith and Christianity. In countries where there are major religious divides, such as Sudan, Nigeria and Côte d'Ivoire, the rise of both Christianity and Islam has created huge potential for destabilisation.
A recent article in the Sunday Herald explored the theory that when European colonisation was at its peak in the 20th century:
"European political occupation often led Africans to seek alternative world views, and Islam was one of them."
Now, some fundamentalist groups are using Islam as a means of political empowerment, either through the ballot box or resorting to violence. Many fundamentalists view Islam as being ranged against what they see as the onset of western decay. One contributor to that article added that
"fundamentalism has a special appeal, partly because it is anti-West, or anti-American, and this has mass appeal in some areas."
A real danger would be if Christian groups in the USA took the moral high ground against Islam. While Islam is growing in many areas, the appeal of Christianity is also on the increase, from Nigeria to South Africa. In Kenya, in the aftermath of the bomb attack on Mombasa, there are tensions similar to those in Nigeria and Sudan. Some Kenyans believe that Muslims are determined to root out the Christian faith in their country. Despite all those clashes, millions of Muslims and Christians get along perfectly well, as the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire has said. In a continent plagued by hunger, disease, unemployment, illiteracy, HIV and AIDS, ordinary people need hope. Many are turning to Islam, and many are turning to Christianity.
There are enough problems to be tackled without creating any more. What can we do? What should the Government do? I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say. Why do we go to war in some countries, while in others we watch thousands die and do nothing? It is not only Bob Geldof who gets frustrated at the lack of progress in Africa. It is an outrage that those who are doing vital work on behalf of all sectors of society are subjected to violent attack. I have already highlighted the problem of the widespread availability of arms. We must attack corruption. Good governance is all too rare. On a recent visit to Malawi by the International Development Committee, it was clear that many people had profited out of the sale of that country's grain reserve.
We should also offer support to all those whose human rights have been denied, and to organisations such as Amnesty International, which monitors those abuses. While there is persecution of Christians, there will be a lack of human rights for all in the same country. Pressure must be applied at all levels of government. Our Government should encourage open and transparent dealing by British companies in Africa.
Violence can grow from poverty, and poverty can be found in countries where the ruling elite salts away millions of pounds in western banks. Local people must get a fair deal from their Governments' contracts. Taxation of the rich in countries such as Nigeria must be made more equitable. A fair distribution of the value of
18WH
natural resources would ease tensions. Fair trade and a fair deal for coffee farmers would also help. When people work hard all year round, but do not end up with enough resources to feed their children, can anyone blame them for seeking someone else to blame for their troubles, especially in the face of so much wealth in the world?
There is hope. Much good work is being done on a continent that has suffered more than any other and that is currently being ravaged by disease, war, poverty, unemployment and hunger, as I mentioned. The last thing that Africa needs is more violence against Christian communities or anyone else, but battles continue to rage. If this is a battle for the soul of Africa, it is definitely a bloody one.
10.36 am
Mr. Peter Luff: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) on initiating the debate and on the way in which he introduced it. His speech was extremely impressive. In a sense, there is little to add to it, but as he indicated, I want to speak in particular about Sudan, an issue to which I shall return.
It is a great pleasure to be the first member of Her Majesty's official Opposition to welcome back the Minister—the Frank Sinatra of the Government, on another farewell tour possibly. I think that this is his 40th Adjournment debate, give or take one or two, so he is a new Minister but also an old one and a welcome face back on the Bench. We take genuine pleasure in seeing him back in the Government.
In a sense, we all need to declare an interest as I think that all of us who have spoken so far are Christians. I certainly am, and my Christian constituents take a close interest in these issues. I have been lobbied particularly hard not about Africa but about Burma and Vietnam, where similar problems exist. This week, I was in Worcester cathedral, where we had a visit from our twin cathedral, Magdeburg. The dean of Magdeburg cathedral preached an impressive sermon, reminding us of the persecution of Jews in Germany only 60 years ago and the persecution of Christians in the German Democratic Republic only 20 years ago. Our continent has form when it comes to persecution of religious faiths. We must remember that and be honest about it.
Our country still has form. There is still sectarianism in Ulster and there is a growing intolerance of Muslims in British society. We have only to look at Burnley to see that. Sikhs and Hindus suffer their own discrimination. Anti-Semitism and racism are still unpleasant features of British society, so we cannot imagine that we have any great moral superiority on this issue. However, the fact remains that the situation in Africa and the persecution of Christians is almost uniquely worrying. I therefore endorse what my hon. Friend said when he reminded the House that we have no monopoly on virtue but that does not mean that we should not act where we can to improve the situation of people suffering elsewhere in the world.
I have read the Koran and there is nothing in it to justify religious violence of the kind that we see in Africa, just as nothing in the Bible justifies the activities in which many Christians participated in the past. Indeed, as the House will know, the Koran commands

19WH
special respect for the people of the Book, and Moses and Jesus are major prophets of both Islam and Christianity.
erhaps it is because of the political dimension, about which the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) spoke, that religious differences in Africa have taken a curiously unpleasant turn. Human society cannot easily tolerate difference and a difference of religion, multiplied by the political dimension and the fear that some people have of the United States of America, which I think is misplaced, creates particular difficulties in Africa.
As I listened to the debate, I thought that there was a danger of being overwhelmed by a sense of evil. The scale of what is happening in Africa is truly shocking. However, we should reassure ourselves that it is possible to take steps to deal with many of the problems. We have heard a number of suggestions about how the Government could have some influence on matters. The hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew) made that point in his impressive remarks.
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) spoke about Colonel Gaddafi's ambition, which is shared by many others, for the Islamicisation of Africa. However, it is well to remind ourselves—here I return to what the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West said—that Christianity is no more a western religion than Islam is. Islam, Christianity and Judaism are all middle eastern religions and there is much commonality in their faith systems. Those who see Christian imperialism as another face of American or British imperialism are therefore making a fundamental mistake and it is well that we remember that.
My hon. Friend showed us, in his fine speech, the sheer scale of what we face in Africa, and I wish to add to his comments. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West rightly said that all violence against humanity is evil and that there is nothing uniquely wrong about attacking a Christian. However, there is something uniquely wrong about an attack on an individual that is motivated in part by hatred of the faith of that individual, whether that be a Muslim attacking a Christian, a Christian attacking a Muslim, a Jew attacking a Palestinian, or whatever. Any religious dimension compounds the scale of the evil.
The situation in Sudan looks no more promising now than it did when we had a debate here only one month ago. Christian Solidarity Worldwide has rightly been praised during this debate, not only because it looks after the interests of Christians worldwide, but because it takes a Christian interest in people worldwide and produces extremely impressive briefing material that concentrates on the suffering of all the people—Christians and others—in the countries that it examines. In a press release dated 4 June, Christian Solidarity Worldwide reported:
"At least 59 people were killed, 15 were injured, and ten children and six women abducted when armed Sudanese government forces simultaneously attacked ten villages in Southern Sudan on May 22.
The attacks happened in eastern Upper Nile in violation of internationally agreed ceasefire provisions.
20WH
Government militia attacked the village of Longchok in eastern Upper Nile using a combination of rocket-propelled grenades, heavy machine guns and assault rifles, according to information received by the US NGO Servant's Heart.
Huts were set ablaze and many villagers were burned to death in their homes, including Presbyterian minister Jacob Gadet Manyiel, the region's only Christian pastor. He was burned to death along with his wife and four children as government troops surrounded their home, threatening to shoot any family member attempting to escape the flames."
Another more recent event was not as tragic as that one, but demonstrates the persecution of Christians in Sudan:
"Six weeks after a Sudanese court jailed an Episcopal priest for refusing to tear down his own church, the Rev. Samuel Dobai Amum has been set free, with the legal process set in motion for his Khartoum North parish to obtain official ownership of its land."
Rev. Samuel Dobai Amum built a church but was then sentenced to an indefinite period unless he demolished it or purchased the land. That would have been impossible but for the intervention of a visiting American delegation that, I believe, had met the President of Sudan and pressed the case. As a result, the money was forthcoming—it was raised partly by local people but largely by the Americans—and the priest was freed from jail. What kind of country is it that sends a man to jail for building a church?
Those examples are just two anecdotes from the continuing tragedy in Sudan. About two million people have died and four million have been displaced as a result of the conflict. My right hon. Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram) and my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman) both visited Sudan early this year.
The Minister will rightly want to remind the House that to view the conflict as north versus south, or Muslim versus Christian would be greatly to oversimplify the complexity of the situation in that country. There are, for instance, tribal sub-conflicts in both halves of Sudan. However, it must be recognised that the south is predominantly Christian and that daily violence is occurring against the south Sudanese people. We have a duty to try to get a fair deal for the south Sudanese people in the peace process that is being conducted, otherwise the peace will not endure. It is a shame that the target for a peace agreement this month does not now appear achievable, although the Minister may have different information. Governments such as ours who want to help to bring peace should not, however, be so anxious for success that they gloss over aspects of the conflict that deny significant parties a voice at the negotiating table. I agree with Paul Savage of Christian Aid, who said:
"Failure to address bad governance now—the current lack of representation, injustice and abuse of human rights—means that the root causes of the conflict will persist. If they are not tackled as part of the present peace negotiations, the manipulation of power and wealth will be as inevitable in peace as in war."
The Minister will not be able to answer all my questions in the brief time available for him to respond, but if he can do so later I would appreciate it. What importance does he place on achieving security before the peace deal in Sudan is signed? Agreement is needed, as peace acts will crumble if there is no security. Does the Minister envisage their continuation on the cessation of hostilities? What is the timetable for future talks on

21WH
security? If the peace agreement is signed, will the leaders be immune to prosecution for abuses committed during the war?
On 16 April 2003, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights rejected a European Union resolution that condemned the
"continuing violations of human rights and international humanitarian law throughout the Sudan".
The resolution would have kept the Government of Sudan under the scrutiny of a UN special rapporteur, but it was defeated by a 26 votes to 24. Twenty-six African and Muslim states voted against the motion; a notable, and honourable, exception was Uganda, which abstained. At present, the head of the commission is Libya, a country where human rights continue to be abused on a daily basis.
Can the Minister assure us that human rights monitoring will be allowed to resume? The UN seeks $255 million in aid to assist the vulnerable people of Sudan. How much aid does the Department for International Development give to Sudan, especially south Sudan where Christians are concentrated?
What plans are in place for the fair redistribution of oil revenues throughout Sudan? In relation to the Christian population of Sudan, the number of internally displaced people, or IDPs to use the jargon, is estimated to be 2.3 million. Ten per cent. of the population in Khartoum is from the south and is expected to stay. There is great unemployment in IDP camps and AIDS is spreading. The Government of Sudan have decreed that everyone has to pay for their medicines, which works against the refugees, who have nothing. What is being done to protect Christians in the IDP camps in northern Sudan? If there is a peace agreement, what plans are in place to enable those IDPs who want to, to return to their homes? What discussions have there been to exempt IDPs from the imposition of sharia law in the north?
The south has been left with virtually nothing. It would like to separate from the north but it would struggle to be a viable state. Are plans in place to reconstruct the south? Women are regularly raped; the day before my hon. Friends visited the country, women had been gang raped. The situation is genuinely dreadful.
Education is often the key to the issues. The southern Sudanese are discriminated against because of their religion. Children in Christian schools, which are run by volunteers and have up to 120 children in a class, are outside the official education system. What plans are there to ensure that all Sudanese children have access to good education?
I echo my hon. Friends in asking about Nigeria. What discussions have the Government had with the Government of Nigeria about the protection of religious freedoms for all groups and the full implementation of sharia law throughout Nigeria? Largely as a result of the recent Miss World contest, we know about the increase in inter-faith violence in Nigeria. The situation is extremely serious. What assessment has the Minister made of violence against Christians in Nigeria, especially in the Plateau state, and what discussions have the Government had with the Government of Nigeria about it?
22WH
My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire mentioned other countries' involvement in these conflicts. What assessment has the Minister made of claims that Islamist militants have hired mercenaries from Niger to attack Christians in Nigeria? Release International is helping about 400 widows and their families in Langtang, Plateau state. What are the Government doing to help the widows and families of those Christians killed, by establishing micro-finance projects, for example?
Many countries have been mentioned in the debate. Others, such as Senegal, Mauritania, Somalia and even Egypt, could be added. Poverty is a breeding ground for extremism and the Government can take action on the issue, as they have been doing. The Minister will no doubt talk about it when he replies to the debate. The House and the Government have a duty to do all that we can to ensure that justice and liberty are protected in Africa.
10.49 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Chris Mullin): First, I thank the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Alistair Burt) for his kind remarks at the outset, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew). They have given me the opportunity to resume my career as the king of the Adjournment debate.
A range of terrible events has been described to us this morning. The issues raised by the hon. Member for North-East Bedfordshire have been obscured by general events in Africa, but he was right to emphasise, as others have done, that religious differences are only one of the many causes of violence and conflict in Africa. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) was right to warn us of the danger of allowing the debate to polarise into an argument between fundamentalist Islam and fundamentalist Christianity. I do not think that that has happened, but the danger exists.
It goes without saying that the Government condemn the persecution of individuals or groups because of their religion. Article 18 of the universal declaration of human rights gives everyone the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, and it is important that it should be upheld everywhere. Our diplomatic missions throughout the world monitor cases in which freedom of thought, conscience and religion are denied. We are in constant dialogue with Governments who offend against those principles and we regularly make appropriate representations. I will not be able to deal with all the questions raised today, but I will examine the speeches and respond in writing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Mr. Reed) mentioned an interesting general point about training in human rights. We already run a two-week human rights course for members of our diplomatic missions, which covers a range of issues, including religious persecution. We are also in the process of appointing human rights advisers to posts in Africa. They will be based in Dakar, Pretoria and Nairobi, and their remit will include monitoring religious violence in west, southern and east Africa, respectively.
Intolerance, as hon. Members said, is not the monopoly of any particular state, religion or continent. It is deplorable wherever it occurs, and is often

23WH
manipulated by unscrupulous politicians for their own ends. Such politicians are not necessarily motivated by religion; they use whatever prejudices are to hand to achieve their goals.
Hon. Members rightly stressed that religious persecution cannot be viewed in isolation; it is often a feature of poverty, poor governance and conflict. Much of Government policy towards Africa focuses on encouraging good government, poverty reduction and the resolution of conflict, because it is only in that climate that political and religious freedoms can be guaranteed.
It is worth reminding ourselves that not all the news from Africa is bad. In Angola, the long civil war is over. Sierra Leone, where we have been heavily involved, is on the road to recovery. In Kenya, a peaceful transition of power has taken place after 24 years of one-party rule. I acknowledge the great problems that hon. Members have mentioned in Nigeria, but it has recently moved one more step away from the military dictatorships of the past.
I shall now examine some of the regions and countries mentioned, starting with Nigeria. The Government have serious concerns about the violence that has targeted religious groups. We are aware that the main flashpoints for religious conflict tend to be in areas where Muslims and Christians are more equally weighted in numbers and that both sides tend to provoke one another. Therefore, measures to address religious tensions and the resulting violence are a key part of our conflict prevention strategy. We firmly believe that dialogue between Christians and Muslims at all levels is the best way to gain understanding and build mutual tolerance. The UK is therefore working with international agencies and Nigerian authorities on the longer-term, underlying causes of conflict. For instance, the Government support the work of Coventry cathedral's centre for peace and reconciliation, which has built trust between religious communities in Kaduna in the past two years. Hon. Members may know that the centre produced the Kaduna peace declaration in August 2002. We hope to extend the programme to the troubled Plateau state.
Likewise, we support the Nigeria-Britain consultative process, which works through faith-based organisations in health and education. Officials from the British high commission in Abuja regularly visit troubled areas. A conflict prevention team visited Plateau state in July 2002 to investigate causes of violence and examine how to prevent further disturbances; the team convened a round-table discussion attended by both Christians and Muslims.
We are realistic about the chances for early reconciliation between the groups. We recognise that long-held suspicion and rivalries, and the mistrust arising from recent events, mean that reconciliation
24WH
work is inevitably a long-term process and that it may suffer many setbacks along the way. However, we remain hopeful and will continue our efforts.
Alistair Burt: Could I draw the Minister's attention to a key point? I referred to the remarks of one of his predecessors, who said that it seemed that the religious dimension to the causes of conflict in Nigeria was either underplayed or not thought to be as serious as we now believe it to be. Will the Minister and the Government revisit that question and recognise the key importance of the religious aspects of the troubles? An understanding of that may assist them in their approach to the Nigerian Government in relation to the activity that he has described.
Mr. Mullin: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that undertaking.
I realise that only four minutes remain and that many issues were raised in the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud gave a graphic account of some of the things that have been happening in Eritrea. I will ensure that his speech is drawn to the attention of Eritrean diplomatic representatives, and to indicate the interest that the House is taking in what is happening in that country.
There is no doubt that the conflict in Côte d'Ivoire has a significant religious and ethnic dimension. However, the root problems are political and economic. The Government—largely drawn from the south, where Christianity and animism predominate—have responded to economic and political pressures over the past decade with a series of measures that clearly discriminate against significant Muslim immigrant communities and against the largely Muslim northern part of the country. There have been attacks and human rights abuses on both sides. We share concerns raised about attacks on Christians.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Luff) asked many questions about Sudan. We are concerned about violence there. Last year saw some progress towards peace—for example, the March agreement between the Government of Sudan and the Sudanese People's Liberation Movement was recently extended, and we hope that it will be extended again. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman on some of the detailed questions that he raised.
Zimbabwe is very much a preoccupation for the Government. I am sure that all hon. Members will accept that it is important to underline that the political crisis in that country has little to do with religion and everything to do with the determination of the ruling elite to cling on to power. Zimbabwe is predominately a Christian country and persecution there is not based on religion. I join the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) in paying tribute to Archbishop Pius Ncube and the other religious leaders who have been outspoken against the bad things that are happening in that country.
I shall conclude on that note, given the limited time available, but as I promised, I will get back to hon. Members on some of the detailed questions that have been raised.

Scholl Funding (South-East)
11 am
Mr. David Cameron: I am delighted to have the opportunity to introduce the debate, and I am pleased to start by congratulating the Minister of State on her new responsibilities, which are, I think, for young people. The fact that she is responding to the debate I take as a compliment to my relative youth.
Although the subject of the debate is school funding in the south-east, I shall focus principally on Oxfordshire and on my constituency, although the same issues affect us across the south-east. I have tried to get to the bottom of the funding conundrum. It is a mystery: a Government committed to education, education, education have got themselves into a position in which schools set deficit budgets, teachers lose their jobs, and difficult cuts are made in the curriculum and elsewhere.
I want, in the tradition of Westminster Hall, to be reasonable, not political, and to get some answers, not just to score points, so I shall try to proceed in that spirit. There is a lot at stake, and we should not play games. People in my constituency are genuinely worried; I have had a huge mailbag from school governors, parents, teachers, heads and others. As the leader of the west Oxfordshire secondary head teachers, Mr. Rod Walker of Henry Box school put it in a very succinct letter:
"There is a problem. None of us anticipated it. The questions are: how can we put school funding back on track for 2004/5 and what can be done to alleviate the problem in 2003/4."
Those are the subjects that I want to address.
Inevitably, to get to the bottom of what has gone wrong, there has to be some element of a blame game because there are three possible groups to blame: the schools, the local education authorities and central Government. I have considered the matter carefully, and I can only come to the conclusion that central Government funding decisions are principally, although not wholly, to blame.
The only finger of blame that can be pointed at the schools concerns the way in which performance-related pay has been used in many instances. The Government assumed for funding purposes that only 65 per cent. of teachers would pass the threshold for performance-related pay, whereas the actual figure in most schools is more like 95 per cent. If the Minister considers the problem of teacher vacancies and unfilled posts in places such as Oxfordshire, she will realise that we need high levels of pay for teachers. When a teacher resigns from a school in my constituency, there are often only two or three applicants for the post.
The first mistake that the Government made was hyping the education budget. Like others, I fell for it. Ministers told us that we would receive £2.6 billion, an increase of some 11 per cent. Schools were, naturally, very excited by the prospect of the extra money, but by the time deductions had been made for teachers' pay changes, pensions, national insurance increases and other changes, the real increase was more like £250 million, or 1 per cent. As the acting head of finance in my local education authority put it in a letter to local councillors:
"I do have sympathy for our schools in that we have only been able to give them a standstill budget at a time when the DFES is continually announcing significant growth in financing for education."
26WH
The lesson to learn for next year is not to hype.
That deals with the past. What needs to be done now? The Government must accept the scale of the problem in the south-east, and in Oxfordshire in particular. I do not claim that schools in Oxfordshire will sack hundreds of teachers; they are much too responsible for that. I met the secondary heads last week. They are moving heaven and earth not to make teachers redundant, but what is happening is just as worrying—there are significant school deficits. Henry Box school in Witney has a deficit of £70,000, Burford School £100,000 and Eynsham School £45,000. Those deficits cannot go on year after year, or the schools will build up significant debts.
All the schools report the same thing: they are having to run a staffing-led curriculum. That means that they take the staff that they can afford, and they have to do the best that they can in the circumstances—not what they planned to do, what the Minister or I would like them to do or what the parents want them to do, only what they are able to do. That means larger classes—in one secondary school in my constituency, there will be classes of between 25 and 31 in year 7—and subjects are being dropped. One secondary school has virtually had to drop business studies altogether.
Vital repairs are being put off. The head of another secondary school told me that he is spending some of the repairs money on salaries because he can and because he has to; it is the only thing that he can do to keep the show on the road. All of the secondary schools said that there would be narrower choices at A-level. I hope that the Minister will look carefully at the way in which local learning and skills councils are funded, because the squeeze on funding seems to be particularly bad at A-level. All schools, including primaries, have said that there will be fewer teaching assistants. In a debate in the House on community services, I mentioned the serious problems that Charlbury primary school and William Fletcher primary school in Yarnton were having, about which I have written to the Minister.
The leader of Oxfordshire county council has written to me to make similar points. He said that schools will not fill teacher vacancies, with a consequent impact on curriculum coverage, or continue lapsed temporary contracts. Their use of teaching assistants will decline, and they will reduce supply cover budgets and increase head teacher training commitments and mixed-age primary classes. All those changes will have a damaging effect on the education of children in Oxfordshire.
It is important that we ensure that the Government understand that the fault does not lie with the LEA. I wrote to the Minister for School Standards about this, but I shall run through the figures again to make the point absolutely clear. The Department for Education and Skills asked every LEA four questions. The first was whether it passed on 100 per cent. of the schools budget increase that came through to it. Oxfordshire's answer is clear: yes, it did.
The second question was how much the non-delegated element of the schools budget had increased and why. In Oxfordshire, that element of the budget increased slightly, because of an increased requirement to fund places for three-year-olds, rising from 68 to 85 per cent. of three-year-olds in 2004. That is to implement a Government policy, which was previously funded through a specific grant, so the LEA has no choice. The

27WH
special educational needs budget has also increased slightly, in response to increased demand for those services. Again, the LEA cannot do anything about that.
The third question was whether revenue funding provided to the LEA was being used for capital purposes. Oxfordshire has some £5.7 million of such funding. Just over £1 million is for linking schools to broadband—we support that Government policy of giving schools access to the internet—and the remainder is for essential repairs, although a similar figure was spent from revenue for capital last year, so that cannot be the reason for the funding problem.
The fourth question was about unallocated money. In Oxfordshire, there is a contingency fund of £1.9 million, which is a relatively small sum, to cover the reorganisation of the middle schools system in the city of Oxford. Again, that is necessary, but even if that were cancelled and the money spread across the county, it would make very little difference.
I hope that I have proved that the fault does not lie with the LEA, which is a good one. It delegates almost its entire budget and wants to fund its schools properly. It is not playing politics but wants to get the right answer, and it is not too late for the Government to take action this year. The head teacher of Burford school suggested that the Government could directly fund schools, as they have done in the past, and if they gave £100,000 to each secondary school and £50,000 to each primary, that would solve the problem. We would not have teacher redundancies, cuts in he curriculum or any of the other problems that I have described.
The Minister may want to know where the money would come from, and I can give her two suggestions. The first is to use the £1 billion underspend in the DFES, and the second is that the Government should examine their running costs, which for central Government as a whole have increased by £3.5 billion, or 20 per cent., since 1997. I know from friends who work in the DFES that not all of that money is spent wisely. The Government should start to plan to reduce their central costs, as every business is trying to do, and to devolve more money to schools. They are asking the LEAs to do that; it is time that the Department did it too.
The Government should also quickly examine next year's situation. All the head teachers to whom I have spoken made that point. This year, they will cope one way or another, but they are desperately worried about next year for two reasons. The first is the dampening grant—dreadful jargon—of £4.7 million, which Oxfordshire is to lose; it will not be available next year. The second is teachers' pay. As more teachers pass the threshold and are being paid more, the gap between what the Government are saying is available and what is actually needed will grow. They will not be able to claim to be shocked at that funding gap, as they have this year. They have been warned, and I hope that the Minister will make preparations for it.
I want to ask the Minister some specific questions. She may not be able to answer them all now, but governors and teachers in my constituency are anxious for
28WH
answers. Announcements have been trailed in the media concerning the fact that there may be an additional £50 million to cover pay pressures caused by the number of teachers passing the threshold to the new, higher pay spine. Are those press reports true, and how and when will that new money be released? We would love an answer.
How will pay pressures be dealt with in future? I say again to the Minister that that is probably the most important question of all for those of us who live in areas of high housing cost where we need high pay to recruit and retain good teachers. I mentioned the significance of the dampening grant of £4.7 million that Oxfordshire receives this year but will not get next year. How will that be dealt with in 2004, and when we will know the answer?
Schools have been told to spend delegated money for capital on salaries and other revenue items. I mentioned a school that has spent a large amount of capital funding in that way. How will that shortfall be addressed in future? This is a last-minute plea to the Minister, but I make it in earnest. West Oxfordshire has very good primary and secondary schools; they are inventive and they are trying hard to deliver a high quality of education.
Two teachers from Henry Box school in Witney came to see me yesterday about a project to set up a permanent link with a school in Rwanda, not only for pupil exchanges and to teach in that school, but to record living history as a testament to the dreadful genocide in Rwanda 10 years ago. I know that that is exactly the sort of the thing that the Minister wants to encourage, but I fear that we are letting schools down this year, partly because this was so out of the blue that they had no time to plan.
I end with a final plea to the Minister. I believed that the Government were trying to get rid of some of what I call the fiddly grants—if schools do a little of this or that, they receive more money. The message was that more money would go straight to the schools and more funding would be calculated on a per-pupil basis. Why then do we still have all these extra schemes such as the leadership incentive grant? Secondary schools in my constituency are desperate for extra money. They apply for everything that they can from the DFES, but they never qualify for any of it. In the case of the leadership grant, one has to qualify; one does not apply. The money, £125,000 for three years, will simply not be available to areas such as mine.
Another scheme is leading edge schools. There are no leading edge schools in Oxfordshire. Why not? If the scheme is about linking very good schools with less well performing ones, I could recite a list of fantastic secondary schools in my constituency which are itching for that money and would love to link up with schools in Banbury or Oxford, which they would do brilliantly.
A very experienced head teacher told me that the problem with the current system is that it is as if there is only one place where good ideas in education are allowed to germinate—the DFES. I know, as I am sure the Minister does, that that is simply not true. We must move to a system in which we place more trust in the

29WH
governing bodies and head teachers to spend more of their own money. If the Government have learned anything from this year's problems with education funding—a crisis that has surprised them as much as the schools—it is that we need to move to a system in which more money is devolved directly to schools. The attraction of giving schools the money and letting them get on with the job have never been greater, and I hope that the Minister will give that serious consideration in the year ahead.
11.14 am
Mr. Andrew Turner rose—
Mr. Peter Atkinson (in the Chair): Order. Can I confirm that the hon. Gentleman has the permission of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) and the Minister to make a contribution?
Mr. Turner: Yes, Mr. Atkinson. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on securing the debate. As a former governor and teacher in Oxfordshire, I am familiar with some of the schools that he has, rightly, applauded.
The Isle of Wight falls within the curiously named south-east region, as the Minister will know. I have met middle school and secondary school head teachers who are concerned about cost pressures. I have no interest in defending Isle of Wight council, but it has included £800,000 more in the education budget than it was necessary—in the Government's view—to passport to schools. The council tax has risen by 14 per cent. this year, and by 34 per cent. in the past two years. However, head teachers still face the problems of performance-related pay thresholds, the increase in pension contributions, the absorption of the standards fund's responsibilities into the base budgets without a parallel increase in funding, and of the profile of the teacher work force on the island, which contributes greatly to the security and experience from which pupils benefit. Other problems include Government pressures such as national insurance and the fact that the cost of the Criminal Records Bureau checks will double this year. The teachers' contract that will be unveiled this afternoon will cost £1 billion, but the Government are funding it to the tune of only £60 million.
Those are the threats and the current problems facing schools. I hope that the Minister will say something about the remedies to those problems. Two remedies have been mentioned; one is transferring capital into revenue. Some of that capital is already committed to projects; in some cases, it has already been spent. The other remedy is that schools can overspend. They can overspend this year, but they will have to meet that overspend next year. Governors and head teachers are concerned about their legal liabilities. I ask the Minister to state whether governors face any legal liability for an overspend in a particular year. I thank the Minister for allowing my intervention. I look forward to hearing her answers.
11.16 am
The Minister for Children (Margaret Hodge): I congratulate the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron) on securing the debate. I understand his interest in how the new funding arrangements have affected schools in his constituency, and I understand the interest of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) in the broader context of the south-east.
I start by paying tribute to teachers in Oxfordshire for the excellent work that they are doing. We in the House should recognise the outstanding work that is carried out in our schools. For example, the percentage of pupils leaving primary schools in Oxfordshire who are doing well in English has risen from 66 per cent. in 1998 to 76 per cent. in 2002; in maths, that figure has risen from 61 per cent. to 73 per cent.; and, in science it has risen from 73 per cent. to 87 per cent.
At GCSE, the percentage of young people achieving five or more passes at grades A* to C has risen from 46.5 per cent. in 1998 to 51.5 per cent. in 2002. I am sure that the hon. Member for Witney will join me in congratulating the teachers in his area on that success.
There has been a record £2.7 billion increase in funding for schools this year, and that will go up by another £1.4 billion in 2004–05. With a further increase of £2.1 billion in 2005–06, that will mean a total cash increase over the three years of more than £6 billion. That is an injection of real money after—I have to say to the hon. Gentleman—years of cuts and a lack of investment in our school infrastructure.
In Oxfordshire, the picture on funding is striking. Between 1997–98 and 2002–03, Oxfordshire's education spending assessment increased by more than £67 million—an increase of 34.6 per cent. over five years. I am delighted that Oxfordshire has decided to passport that full increase in its schools funding assessment on to its schools budget. Funding through that formula is only part of the picture. The school standards direct grant takes account of both revenue and capital. As a result, a typical primary school with 250 pupils will receive £10,000 more this year than last, a rise from £40,000 to £50,000, and a typical secondary school with 1,000 pupils will receive £50,000 more this year, a rise from £115,000 to £165,000. Such funding did not exist under the previous Conservative Government.
The same picture emerges for capital. That, too, has increased. One of the most shameful things that happened under the previous Government was the under-investment in the school buildings in which our teachers teach and our pupils learn. In 1998–99, capital funding in Oxfordshire was £10.6 million; this year it is £33.9 million. I hope that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that.
This has been a year of change for the school funding system. Partly in response to the requests of LEAs and schools, we have introduced a range of changes to education funding and the wider local government finance system. In particular, changes to the distribution formula for education formula spending, together with the ending of a substantial body of ring-fenced grants from the Department's standards fund—just what the hon. Gentleman asked for—have resulted in different LEAs and schools receiving a wide range of year-on-year increases in overall support for education.

31WH
Both sides of the House agreed that reform of the education funding system was badly needed. It was out of date, complicated and hard to explain, it did not reflect the division of responsibilities between schools and LEAs, and it was widely seen as unfair because it was based on spending patterns that dated back to 1991.
Our aim in the new system is to ensure that similar pupils in different parts of the country receive a similar amount of money from the Government. We want funding to recognise the separate responsibilities of schools and local education authorities. That is why the schools and the LEA funding blocks are separate under the new system.
As hon. Members know, there are three basic funding entitlements for all pupils: first, for primary and secondary schools; secondly, factors for deprivation and additional educational needs; and, thirdly, factors to reflect area costs for salaries and recruitment and retention, which I know is an issue in the hon. Gentleman's constituency and in that of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight.
The new system is based on evidence suggesting that authorities with significant deprivation that face additional costs in recruiting and retaining staff need to spend significantly more to achieve the same results for the children. I know from my constituency that many schools, particularly those in London and the south-east, face particular pressures because of the extra cost of recruiting and retaining staff. However, the new system recognises the fact that authorities outside that area face similar problems. That is why we refined the system for area costs, making it much more sensitive to local circumstances. I hope that hon. Members recognise that high cost areas can exist outside the south-east and that there are variations within London and the south-east.
We acknowledge that some local authorities have to adopt special measures to recruit and retain teachers, which leaves them facing extra costs. The new system provides additional allowances to help recruit and retain staff; to cover the costs of supply cover for vacant posts, which is generally higher than the cost of employing a permanent member of staff; and to help with the costs of recruiting and advertising for staff. The allowances are not based on teachers' pay scales, because they do not fully reflect differences in the cost of recruiting and retaining staff in different areas of the country. They are based on general wage differentials. The result is that the coverage of the adjustment for area costs has been extended; it will now cover 99 authorities, whereas it previously covered only 59. I hope that extra funding is available.
In introducing the new system we also took account of the additional costs that schools face due to the additional educational needs of their pupils. The current system for doing that is based on odd data, including the 1991 census and such things as whether the children have lone parents or parents who were born abroad. It also uses information about children from families in receipt of income support. The 1991 pattern of expenditure is not a good predictor of need to spend now. Pupil characteristics in 1991 do not best measure the additional educational needs of children today. In
32WH
particular, just because a child's parents were born abroad, it does not necessarily mean that that child has additional language needs.
Under the new system, we reflect a wider definition of poverty. The number of children of parents on income support is supplemented by the number of children of parents in receipt of the working families tax credit. That picks up those children whose parents are in low-paid work. The measure has received particular support from rural authorities, like those of the hon. Gentlemen, where pay rates are lowest.
The new formula also contains a sparsity element to reflect the costs of home to school transport in rural areas such as Oxfordshire, and to help rural primary schools. We have increased the funding for sparsity since the summer consultation in response to evidence received.
I turn to the funding problems that have been faced by a number of authorities. In our view, the funding of schools is a shared responsibility between central and local government and we recognise that the challenge for us all this year has been to manage the complex interaction of a series of changes. We have transferred funding to reflect the teachers' pensions increase and we are working through the teachers' pay settlement. Although there have been large cash increases in education overall this year, we recognise that the cost pressures have been substantial and have varied from school to school, because of threshold and other issues, and from authority to authority depending on cost structures and local deployment of resources.
We recognised that in some authorities the combination of a low increase in education formula spending share and reductions in grant through the standards fund was likely to result in low budget increases for schools. That is why we announced the extra £28 million, to ensure that the effective increase in education funding for LEAs and their schools between 2002–03 and 2003–04 is no less than 3.2 per cent. per pupil. That protected pupils in Oxfordshire.
We have provided extra money for London LEAs and we have met the full cost of the teachers' threshold, which will be paid by additional grant from my Department. The hon. Gentleman was right to draw attention to that as a continuing problem that we need to tackle in next year's funding settlement.
Mr. Cameron: Will the Minister clarify whether the extra money for funding teachers will be available to LEAs like mine for this year?
Margaret Hodge: Indeed it will. We sent a letter to LEAs on 2 May, which I hope that the hon. Gentleman has seen, in which the £205 million performance-related pay grant that the Department will be paying was set out. We also announced a relaxation in the regulations to devolve capital that could be used for revenue purposes and the hon. Gentleman is right to say that that was for one year only. On damping, that will carry on into 2004–05, both for the education formula and the overall revenue support grant. Although we have not yet set them, there will have to be floors and ceilings to carry on the transition to the new local government finance system. I recognise what the hon. Gentleman says: we need an early resolution to the issue of funding for next year, and we are working as hard as we can to achieve that.

33WH
The new system is a substantial improvement on the old. When it settles down, we shall see that. It is evidence based, not backward looking; it reflects LEAs' and schools' separate responsibilities; it uses up-to-date data; it is relevant to the current needs of children and it is simpler than the old system. We promised a fairer, simpler system and I believe that that has been delivered.
We must look forward and learn quickly from the experience of this year, so that we can put in place better arrangements for next year. We are working hard with all stakeholders and our priority is to ensure that all schools receive a reasonable per pupil settlement in 2004–05. To meet that goal we are talking to all our national partners and I shall list our principles for the hon. Gentleman: sufficient education funding; increases for every LEA; the right balance between general grant and ring-fenced and targeted money; confidence that schools and pupils will receive the money intended for them; the right balance between in-school and out-of-school provision; fair and appropriate variations in the budget increases; and, work force reform in line with the national agreement.
11.30 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Minorities (Former Yugoslavia)
2 pm
Mr. Neil Gerrard: I am glad to have secured this debate, as it gives me the opportunity to raise a number of issues. I shall concentrate on minority rights in Kosovo, but I shall refer also to other parts of former Yugoslavia. Hon. Members will have seen some of the recent reports: Amnesty International produced one in April, and in May we saw the latest reports of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe's mission in Kosovo and of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, both of which discussed minority rights. Those reports acknowledge that progress has been made over the past four years—the situation has improved since 1999—while accepting that substantial ongoing problems remain.
I do not think that any of us underestimates the difficulties and problems of the region, given its history and the ethnically based conflicts that have happened there in recent years. We do not expect everything suddenly to be resolved, or to find that the problems caused by fighting over ethnic divisions have disappeared. However, we should remember that there are international responsibilities. When the United Nations Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo, or UNMIK, was established in 1999, through Security Council resolution 1244, it was given responsibility for protecting and promoting human rights. That resolution referred also to the establishment of an environment in which refugees and displaced persons could return home in safety. A legal framework was created by the UN, and that imposed responsibilities on the international community.
In 2001, the constitutional framework created by the UN Secretary-General's special representative referred specifically to the rights of all communities in Kosovo, including minorities. It spoke about the right of people to use their own language before courts and public bodies, to receive education and to have equal opportunities in employment—specifically employment by public bodies—and about the need for legislation to protect the rights of minority groups. As I said, although Amnesty International, the OSCE and the UNHCR acknowledged that improvements have been made over the past four years, they point to ongoing and systematic discrimination—and worse—against minority groups.
The minority groups in Kosovo cover a huge range of people, including Serbs, Roma, Ashkaelia and Egyptians. In certain parts of Kosovo, especially to the north, Albanians are an ethnic minority. Depending on where they happen to be, virtually every part of the population is a minority. Although there has been a decline in the number of what appear to be ethnically motivated attacks over the past three or four years, they are still happening, but very little has been done to bring anyone to justice for many of the attacks, which often go unreported as a result of failures in and the lack of a justice system.
In the first six months after the entry of KFOR and UNMIK in 2002, the number of ethnically motivated killings declined from more than 400 to fewer than 100, according to UNMIK. That is certainly an improvement. There is no question but that returnees are particularly

35WH
vulnerable to attack, especially in areas where they are in a minority. A virtual system of apartheid has developed in Kosovo. Minorities have been driven into enclaves. Those outside the enclaves are at risk, and even those within them very often remain protected by static or mobile KFOR troops. Children still have to be escorted to school by troops, and people cannot travel freely outside the town or village where they are living without KFOR's protection.
The reduction in the number of ethnically motivated killings may reflect the fact that people have withdrawn into enclaves where they feel safer, rather than their being able to travel and mix freely. In many cases, people have left their homes to live somewhere where they feel more secure. Last year, according to Amnesty International, UNMIK could not supply figures for the number of recorded crimes that were believed to be ethnically motivated and that had led to arrests. Those figures refer not only to the killings that I mentioned. I will not list the incidents that are detailed in the Amnesty or OSCE reports, but they cite reports of attacks on property, churches and cemeteries, and a continuing problem of access to justice. Many see the judiciary as biased and unable to act, so that attacks are carried out with impunity.
There are problems of access even to basic health care—allegations have been made that doctors refuse to see patients from minority groups—and to education. I was struck by Amnesty's reporting of some of the problems that children experience. Schools have problems recruiting qualified teachers because of security concerns, and problems with the provision of escorts. Amnesty cited the example of a Serbian elementary school teacher teaching in a small Serbian village about 16 km from where she lives. On Monday mornings, she has to be collected from her house by a KFOR armoured personnel carrier and taken to the village where she stays until Friday evening when KFOR returns her to her home. Such conditions still exist.
Employment is clearly a major problem throughout Kosovo. Three years ago, I and two other Members of Parliament went there with the Refugee Council. We went to see what had happened to people who had been to this country through the humanitarian evacuation programme and had returned to Kosovo. It was clear then that anyone who went back had enormous difficulty in finding work. The position was distorted—and I expect that it still is—by the presence of the international organisations. It was striking that, of the people we met who had gone back, the one who was best off was doing the laundry for KFOR. Others who had much better developed skills had been unable to find any useful work. All the jobs had been taken by people who had never left or had returned sooner.
The latest statistics that I have seen suggest that, across Kosovo, unemployment is running at about 50 per cent. That applies to the entire working population, but among minority groups, especially among Serb and Roma communities, that figure rises to more than 90 per cent. If one is a member of a minority community, the chances of finding any work are minimal.
36WH
The Home Office provided me with an answer to a recent parliamentary question that made it clear that British policy was not to enforce the return of people from minority communities to Kosovo. Unfortunately, that is not necessarily true of other western European Governments. There are certainly worrying trends developing of forced returns. None of us would be against the idea of people returning—indeed, there is a right of return for refugees—but any return must be to conditions that are safe. So far, the vast majority of the displaced Serb and Roma refugees are not showing any signs of being able or willing to return.
We ought to look again at what UNMIK is able to do, and what support we are giving it. We must examine what resources it has to investigate human rights abuses, to help and protect witnesses, to develop the right of the freedom of movement, and to start to break down the enclaves that still exist. It is a difficult issue, because the withdrawal of KFOR protection around an enclave may be seen in a very negative light by people who feel that they need that protection.
There is no question but that the position of the Roma people is desperate, not just in Kosovo but in the whole of the former Yugoslavia. When I was in Kosovo in 2000, I visited a Roma village. It was one of the most depressing experiences of my life. I have never seen people living in worse conditions within Europe. In 1999, Roma people became targets for attack. They were viewed by the Kosovo Liberation Army as having collaborated with the Serbs in ethnic cleansing of Albanian Kosovars. Some may well have been involved in that, perhaps under duress. However, many were targeted simply for working for a Serb employer. They are now reduced to living in enclaves and many have not returned to Kosovo. It is estimated that up to 45,000 Roma people are still in Serbia and Montenegro and Macedonia. Those now in Serbia and Montenegro are living in the most appalling conditions. They cannot return and they are not accepted where they are. The conditions for Roma people who have always lived in Serbia and Montenegro are bad, and for those who have been displaced there, it is probably even worse. They live in settlements without even the most basic infra structure. There is segregation in education where the children can get into schools. There are forced evictions and there is physical abuse by the police and other public authorities.
There are specific problems in Macedonia. In mid-May, a group of roughly 700 Roma refugees in Macedonia attempted to travel to Greece to seek asylum because of the conditions in Macedonia. However, they are still on the Macedonia-Greece border in a makeshift camp with no proper shelter and no food, water or medical care. According to people who visited the camp, the conditions are dreadful. People are suffering from serious infections. Life-threatening conditions are developing, particularly for young children. The UNHCR has distributed some food, although it was the UNHCR that closed the camp where those people were living in Skopje. They are now on the Greek border, but Greece refuses to allow them to cross into Greece and apply for asylum. No one seems to be doing anything about those very vulnerable people.
Let us recall what we did in 1999, when Albanian Kosovars crossed into Macedonia. We established the humanitarian evacuation programme, which in many

37WH
ways worked quite successfully. We should be thinking about what we can do for the group to which I have been referring. We are not talking about huge numbers of people, but they are in the most dreadful position, stuck on the border and unable to go anywhere. They cannot return to Kosovo, where they came from, are not accepted in Macedonia, and cannot cross into Greece to apply for asylum.
We should be considering what we can do, through the EU in particular and UNMIK, to provide the support necessary for minorities. We must develop better structures. A recent report from the International Crisis Group made a number of suggestions about what could be done throughout the former Yugoslavia, including trying to persuade Belgrade to co-operate more with UNMIK and to stop actions that may destabilise conditions. The suggestions also included things that could be done by the Kosovan Albanian leaders, the Kosovo Serb leaders, the United States and the EU.
When we went into Kosovo, set up UNMIK and were party to KFOR being set up there, we accepted some duties and responsibilities. There is an international dimension, of which we are part. However, there is a danger that what is happening there now is being forgotten. The feeling is that the trouble in Kosovo was four years ago, it is all over and everything is improving there. In fact, there are still extremely serious problems for all the populations, particularly those, wherever they happen to be, that are in a minority in the region.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister can tell us something about actions that our Government might be able to take to exert pressure in the right places and to try to ensure that some of the conditions change.
2.19 pm
Mr. John Randall: I congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has done the House a service by raising this subject. He is well known for his work with refugees and asylum seekers. Much of what is going on is not only a local problem but has a knock-on effect, as asylum seekers and refugees try to escape to western Europe and elsewhere from the misery that they suffer in various countries in the region.
The whole area, not just the former Yugoslavia, is rich in minorities. That is a result, I imagine, of the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires having been in control of the Balkan region and up into Hungary. Throughout the region, there are significant minorities stuck in enclaves. It is not like places that have clear boundaries; there are whole villages in Slovakia or Romania, for example, that are exclusively Hungarian—or the other way round. It is not at all simple.
Today, we are confining ourselves to the boundaries of former Yugoslavia, whose former territories, with the possible exception of Slovenia, all have sizeable minorities. Some of the things that have gone on have been heartbreaking. Many hon. Members know, because I find myself repeating it, that I studied out there at a time when Yugoslavia was something of a model country and people in the west hoped that it would be an example of how central and eastern
38WH
European countries would be freed from the tyranny of communism. When was in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the area provided an example of how people could live happily together. How sadly that has all changed.
Like the hon. Gentleman, I shall restrict myself mainly to discussing Kosovo, because that is where the situation has been polarised. I shall also mention Macedonia. However, it is important to make the point that in Croatia there is a severe problem with the Serbian minority—those who are left—in the district known as Krajina, around the town of Knin, and surrounding areas, where the whole population was, effectively, ethnically cleansed. Returns to the area have been singularly unsuccessful. It is very sad that such problems exist in countries that aspire to be members of the European Union.
Let us not kid ourselves that the problem is exclusively in the Balkans area. There are minority problems throughout central and eastern Europe. Some of them have been somewhat subsumed, but there are border disputes quietly fizzing along. Not long ago, I was in Slovakia with an Hungarian group. Every time we went into a Slovak town, they insisted on calling it by the old Hungarian name, not the Slovak one. That is common throughout the region.
I would like to start with Macedonia, because in some ways it had more of a chance, and happily it has still not suffered the major problems that occurred elsewhere. However, there are Potential problems there. It had a census last year, with international observers present during the collection of the data. To date, so far as I am aware, no official results have been produced. The thought, backed up by some western diplomats in Skopje, is that the census showed that ethnic Albanians accounted for less than 20 per cent. of the population. In an area in which populations and ethnicity are an important part of politics, that seems unacceptable to many of the Albanian minority. Even the Democratic party of Albanians, which is now part of the Government, says that any number that amounts to less than 25 per cent. is unacceptable. It may seem incredible to us that any party could say what result is acceptable and what is not. The Conservative party might sometimes say that the result of a Division was unacceptable, but we know that we must face facts. However, when official censuses are conducted in the region with western observers, it would be helpful if the results were accepted.
The census might have produced the result that it did because persons who are absent from the country for one year or longer are not counted. However, the Macedonian Government cannot be blamed for that condition, because the UN insisted on it. Ethnic Albanians are the largest minority group in Macedonia, and they participate in the Government. There are times when even those in the coalition are not as co-operative as they might be, perhaps owing to the nature of the political system, although some would say that things go beyond that. A couple of years ago, I was asking questions about Macedonia to the then Minister and was lucky enough to be able to go and have a look at what was going on with the Government party. The aim was partly also to try to persuade the Macedonian politicians that the Ohrid agreement was a good thing. Some of the answers that some politicians gave us showed that there was still a long way to go. In

39WH
particular, I remember discussing the removal of weapons and the fact that people were disarming. Eventually, I was told, "Well, it doesn't really matter, because there's plenty more where they came from." That shows the sort of commitment that certain parties were making.
Unfortunately, it is not one ethnic group that is causing problems, as is the case in a lot of other areas too. In the pre-11 September world the word "terrorism" probably did not have quite the same connotations as it does now—there was no war on terrorism—yet that was how Lord Robertson described much of the activities of some separatist Albanians. Such people do not terrorise only the majority—they terrorise their own people too. We saw that in Kosovo when the KLA terrorised its own Albanian population.
I mention that in particular, because—as I am sure the Minister, a capable man, knows—the Home Office cannot send some Kosovan Albanians back to Kosovo, as it is not safe for them return, which shows the problem that exists. The hon. Member for Walthamstow mentioned that minorities such as Serbs and Roma cannot return to Kosovo. However, there are people in my constituency who feel that they would rather go back to Albania than to Kosovo because they feel that it is an unsafe place to be It is therefore worth remembering, when we congratulate ourselves on our great achievements in 1999, that things are far from what we hope them to be.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the Roma who came from Kosovo who are now trying to leave Macedonia. Throughout the area the Roma people have suffered greatly for a long time. It is not just within the Balkan regions, either. The Roma in some of the accession countries that will soon be coming into the EU have had a rough deal, as we know from those who have come here. We only have to go back to the 1940s to realise that the Roma, who in those days were called gypsies, were persecuted then. They seem to get the rough end whoever is in charge.
The other minorities in Macedonia—the Turks, Vlachs, Serbs and the Roma—are allowed to have political parties and most are represented in Parliament. There are media in their languages and the third channel on Macedonian television broadcasts only in those minority languages. There are also private media in all the minority languages. Macedonia is trying its best, but the international community must not be blind to the problems caused, which are being exported because of some of the problems in today's Kosovo.
When we talk about minorities, the Minister should look at the Macedonian minority in Greece, which Greece is happily looking after in a far more civilised way—there was a time when their language was banned and they had a rough time.
We should really sort out the question of the name of the country. The Minister looks exasperated. I do not blame him for being exasperated—I would be exasperated. It seems incredible in today's world that a member of the EU has a problem with a country being called by a certain name, so that it has to be called the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. It is a bit of a mouthful, and it will be a problem in September with the
40WH
football scores, but it is a serious matter that must be addressed. The Macedonians have been doing an awful lot to try to help the international community achieve a multi-ethnic state, which we all want. We should do our little bit to give them some backing.
The situation in Kosovo, or Kosovo-Metohija, is not such a jolly picture. We intervened in 1999 to try to stop the persecution of a minority. I am not going to dwell on the rights and wrongs of that action—there is probably enough there for another day. Suffice it to say that in today's world as we look towards what evidence we had regarding Iraq we should be looking cleverly and intensely at the evidence that was presented at the time and at what subsequently proved to be accurate. There are many parallels. Interestingly, some of the people who today question the reports from Iraq and resigned from high-level positions are those who previously gave evidence.
The state of Kosovo is a disgrace to Europe. It can only be described as a gangster state. The Christian Albanians, the Montenegrins, the Albanians, the Turks, the Jews, the Roma, the Gorans, the Serbs and the Macedonians have been effectively ethnically cleansed from the province. One has only to go across the border to see such internally displaced persons. The hon. Gentleman talked about the conditions of the Roma in their camps. I visited a refugee or an IDP camp in southern Serbia. I found it appalling to see in today's Europe people still living in such conditions.
The hon. Gentleman effectively described the conditions and what happens: the very few children who are left are taken to school in armoured vehicles. The country, along with other members of NATO, the UN and the international community, did what it did to create a multi-ethnic society. It has failed miserably. What is more, it has stored up problems for years to come.
Malcolm Bruce: I agree with the hon. Gentleman, but he is being a little harsh. We did what we did to prevent them from killing each other at the time. We obviously hope that we can build a multi-ethnic society, but given the bitterness, we can hardly expect quick results.
Mr. Randall: I do not doubt the sincerity of those who intervened: I always said that they did so for the best possible reasons. All I am saying is that the results of that intervention are far from what we hoped. Knowing the region as I do, I must say that any optimism that the situation will change dramatically is mistaken. Our evidence suggests that the Albanian Kosovars do not want any Serbs to return: indeed, they have set their minds against it.
On that note, it may be worth mentioning something that happened a few days ago. On 17 May, Zoran Mirkovic was killed. He was a Serbian professor of Russian from Vrbovac and the father of three small children. On 19 May, there was the attempted kidnap of Stanko Misic, who was on his way to tend his field. A family was also murdered recently. There is a constant catalogue of these crimes, and it is not by chance that they occur often when the authorities have been trying to persuade the local Albanians or Serbs to return.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow rightly said, we have a severe problem in Kosovo. What has been done has been done, and if I had anything to do with the

41WH
Foreign and Commonwealth Office or the diplomatic service, I would want to be well shot of the state of Kosovo and its future. It makes Northern Ireland look like a picnic. However, we owe it to the people in the refugee camps, whether they are from Kosovo or the Krajina, to offer real clout. We were prepared to intervene militarily, and we should now apply every diplomatic pressure to try to sort out the problems in that benighted area.
2.37 pm
Mr. Robert N. Wareing: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing this vital debate on a subject that has fallen from the headlines in the past few years. We have turned our attention more to the problems afflicting the middle east—Palestine, Israel and Iraq. Many people may think that the problems that Kosovo experienced during the period of ethnic cleansing have suddenly disappeared, and that we are witnessing the emergence of a new state in which ethnic cleansing is no more. However, that belief is false, as my hon. Friend said. I know of his interest in the former Yugoslavia and that he studied there for a while.
Mistakes were made. I believe that the occupation of Kosovo is illegal, but the Serb minority would have been much more reassured if Russia had been allocated a zone. If, in the north of Kosovo, there had been a Russian contribution to UNMIK, many more Serbs would have felt able to go back to their homes. However, that did not happen, so presumably we still regard Kosovo as part of the sovereign territory of Serbia and Montenegro. If that is so, the future in Kosovo will be difficult for the Albanian majority who do not wish to belong to the state that they believe oppressed them in the past.
Kosovo is an interesting case, as before the second world war the majority of its people were Serbs. Largely because of their reproduction rate, the Albanian population are now in the majority in that part of former Yugoslavia. A similar situation could arise in Northern Ireland if the future reproduction rate of one religious group, now a minority, led to it becoming a majority.
How do the Serbs interpret the issue? Unfortunately, they need to be reassured that United Nations and NATO activity is not biased. Throughout the 1990s there was anti-Serb hysteria; as the Serbs see it, that was opposition not just to Milosevic but to the Serb nation. Those Serbs who have left Kosovo are suspicious about what would happen if they went back. They know about the attacks, which are catalogued in the Amnesty International report, and history tells them that if they go back to Kosovo they may not get the assistance of the international forces.
In answer to a parliamentary question, the Minister told me recently that it is estimated that 110 Orthodox churches have been demolished since KFOR came into the region. That does not suggest to Serbs—or to me—that the people of Kosovo, especially Serbs, are protected. Many Albanians, too, have been attacked. I have visited the representatives of Mr. Rugova, who is, I believe, the only Albanian to have been democratically elected to lead the Albanian people in Kosovo. Throughout the conflict, Rugova's supporters were
42WH
under attack from the KLA, which many Serbs suspect run the police force. In Macedonia, many people believe that their troubles just after the end of the Kosovo conflict were generated by the KLA; twenty-five per cent. of the population of Macedonia are Albanian.
I was comforted this week when I met the Foreign Minister of Macedonia who assured me that the Albanian party is in coalition with her party. It is a sister party to the Labour party and is striving to enter Socialist International. I hope that it will be successful.
In Serbia, it is said that Kosovo needs to be partitioned. That suggestion has not come from extremists; Prime Minister Djindjic, who was assassinated a few months ago, said on 22 February that there should be a Serbian mini-state in Kosovo. He claimed that the transfer of sovereignty in Kosovo away from what was still called Yugoslavia had been planned, and the aim of the international community was an independent Kosovo, taking away Yugoslav sovereignty over that province. He suggested that 1,000, or even a few hundred, Serb troops should be deployed in Kosovo to help the Serb refugees to return. That would be a difficult task because, as my hon. Friend said, there are Albanian minorities within Serb enclaves.
We should be conscious that Prime Minister Djindjic advocated a northern Kosovo Serbian state rather like the Republika Srpska in Bosnia and there may be a possibility of such a development.
Mr. Randall: Does not the hon. Gentleman recognise that however appealing that might seem, redrawing the boundaries in that area would be highly dangerous?
Mr. Wareing: I appreciate that, but it was true of Bosnia before the Dayton agreement; many areas contained substantial minorities.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Serbs were driven out of Krajina and areas around Vukovar where there were substantial Serb minorities. I will never forget the bias against the Serbs, not so much by the Government—for most of that period there was a Conservative Government—as by the international media. With my right hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), who is now Secretary of State for Health, I witnessed the mass graves of Serbs as a result of ethnic cleansing at Bosanski Brod early in 1993. The Scottish media refused to publish my right hon. Friend's statement when they heard that the victims were Serbs. They said, "We can't print that." When asked why not, they replied, "Because it would confuse people."
The Amnesty Inter national report calls for an inquiry into some of the atrocities committed since KFOR has been in Kosovo, especially into the Podjevo attack in a town in a remote area. A controlled bomb was set off; 11 Serbs were killed and more than 40 injured, despite the advance warning to KFOR. The report also stated that investigations into some of the crimes were frustrated by the conduct of United States KFOR personnel. I hope that if he has not already read the report, the Minister will take note of those points.
We can directly affect the matter of the 340,000 Hungarians in the former Yugoslavia, who are 25 per cent. of the population of Vojvodina. Hungarians who live in that northern province have been able to go backwards and forwards without visas. They buy much

43WH
of their produce in Hungary, take it back to their farm markets and sell it. When Hungary comes into the European Union, they will need a visa. Will the Minister consider making a concession to the Hungarian population in the north of former Yugoslavia?
2.50 pm
Malcolm Bruce: This is a timely debate, and one that must continue, whether it is in or out of the headlines. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) perhaps knows better than anyone, the history of the Balkans is composed of 1,000 years of trouble, oppression, internal fighting and civil war. We could not expect to resolve that in the few short years after the collapse of Tito's Yugoslavia. However, if the ideals and ambitions that we are trying to build in Europe have any meaning, they would lead us to try to create a society in the Balkans that aspires to the values taken for granted by the rest of Europe—although sometimes I wonder about that when I read the populist right-wing press in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, most of us recognise that that is the case.
I am not being facetious when I say that within our own islands we have many ethnic minorities—indigenous as well as immigrant—and have our moments of racial tension. However, even in the long history of Northern Ireland, we do not have the record of appalling massacres of hundreds of thousands of people as in the Balkans—the scale is almost incomprehensible to people living in our society.
In Scotland, it is interesting that the mix of the population is changing rapidly: 25 per cent. of the population of the city of Edinburgh is English. I suspect that a similar percentage of my own constituency is English, and in some villages in the highlands 50 per cent. of the population is English. However, it is incomprehensible to us that people who have such differences would resort to the sheer frenzied brutality, mayhem and murder that have taken place in the Balkans. If we can engage with the people in the Balkans, we must try to work out how, together, we can make progress.
I did not take issue with the hon. Member for Uxbridge, but agreed with him. Everything I hear about Kosovo—I visited the neighbouring areas, but have not yet visited Kosovo—tells me that it is, as he described it, a hell-hole and a disaster area. I understand the argument of those who say that we should not have taken action in Kosovo—that the action was illegal. However, I would say that those of us who supported that action did so not because we thought that it was a long-term solution, but because we wanted to stop a short-term situation in which people were killing one another in their thousands on a daily basis. We thought that we had to act, and try to rebuild thereafter. I do not think that there is a difference of view about what we are trying to do. I did not believe that we would immediately solve Kosovo's problems. I hoped that people would stop being killed, and that there would then be time to address the issues.
The debate refers to the whole of former Yugoslavia, and so some comparisons can be made. Kosovo is the worst and most acute problem, and it is possible that
44WH
Kosovo can begin to emerge from its nightmare only if we can demonstrate some progress in the surrounding area. That may be the way to make people recognise that there is hope and a positive way forward.
I remember encountering an Hungarian immigrant from the former Republic of Yugoslavia early in the period after the break-up of that country, who had already made up his mind to get out and come to the UK before the ethnic cleansing got under way. When it started he was watching the situation from the UK and saying, "I can't believe what's happening. My friends were Serbs, Croats and Bosniaks." He said that he had had a pop group with four members, one from each community, not by design, but because one was a good bassist, one a good drummer, one a good singer and the other a good rhythm guitarist. He said that they did not ask one another about their backgrounds, although they knew what they were. He had to stand by and watch those people kill one another. He said that he could not comprehend how that situation had come about. For me, as someone who has become involved in the problems in the Balkans only in the past few years, particularly as a member of the Council of Europe, and who has visited some of those wonderful areas, it is a matter of incomprehensibility that people can degenerate to such depths of violence and viciousness. As an optimist, I hope that we can create institutional frameworks that will give us a chance of moving forward.
Mr. Randall: Perhaps I ought to redress the balance. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there are huge areas today—and were even during the bombing of Belgrade—where Albanians live very happily together?
Malcolm Bruce: I agree. I am trying to make the point that we must build on that practical success and create institutions that will work. We could then spread that attitude to some areas where conflicts are as intense as ever. Parts of Bosnia and Herzegovina—depending on one's point of view, and which commentator one listens to—are either moving towards making progress, or are on the verge of falling back into disintegration.
I turn to one or two personal experiences that I had when I was monitoring elections in and around Sarajevo. In one of the polling stations that I visited, which was high up in the hills, about 15 miles off the main road, I found myself in a Serbian hunting lodge. The people there felt relaxed as Serbians living a long way from everywhere else, but said that there was no real future for them in Bosnia and Herzegovina. I asked them what was wrong with their lives, and they said that they were absolutely fine. I asked who was interfering in their lives, and they answered that no one was. I asked what the problem was, and they had no answer that made any sense.
On the other hand, I had with me a Bosniak driver and interpreter. One of them related the most terrifying experience that he had had was when his car was stolen in the street in Sarajevo. He received a telephone call to say that his car would be available if he cared to venture into a small town in the Republika Srpska, about 10 miles from Sarajevo. When he did that, he was blindfolded, taken into the middle of a forest at gunpoint, asked whether he had a mobile phone, and

45WH
told that if he wanted his car back, he would have to get someone from Sarajevo to arrive with $3,000 within an hour. If they arrived, he could have the car hack. If they did not arrive within an hour, they would find his body. That is not ethnic cleansing: it is crime and terrorism. When I asked what he did about it, he said he had done nothing. He said that the next time they took his car, they could keep it. He had no confidence in the law enforcement agencies.
Having said that, there are more than 300,000 returnees in Bosnia, including some who have returned to the Republika Srpska. Perhaps it is easier for Bosniaks to return to Sarajevo. I met a Serb who had previously been in Sarajevo who was not interested in reclaiming his property, at least not yet. I know that Paddy Ashdown, the UN high representative—the lord high executioner, as I sometimes call him—is very committed to that community. He is a perpetual optimist. I was interested to read in the Library brief that his analysis of the significance of the elections in Bosnia was echoed by others. On the face of it, it seemed to be a retrograde step, a return to the old nationalisms, but it is a more complicated and positive measure, and a greater recognition of the fact that the communities will succeed only if they work together. Paddy Ashdown makes the point incessantly that the international community will not come up with the necessary investment without sufficient confidence.
Economic development is part of the key. If people can see a material improvement in their lives, have more confidence in the institutions and start to relax about the future, it is a realistic possibility that they will recognise at last that the old battle lines are destructive in every sense. They are appallingly destructive not only of life and relations but of the purpose of life. What kind of life is it if people live in total fear, with no prospect of employment, no stake in the land, no confidence in the institutions of law and order—and no hope?
Ultimately, those working through international institutions, Governments, the European Union and the Council of Europe must keep saying that we are genuinely trying to give those people a vision of the future that is worth aspiring to, but that they will not achieve it unless they break out of that cycle. The hon. Member for Uxbridge, with all his experience, takes the view that nothing will change, but I hope that he is ultimately proved wrong, although I appreciate that history is so long and the turmoil so short and recent that even the most optimistic can hardly be overjoyed.
I hope that we can ask people to focus on the next 100 years rather than the last 1,000. If they recognise the benefits that will flow from a peaceful Europe, and the aspiration of membership of the EU and the euro, they will realise that what we are offering them will make a positive difference; however, they must realise also that they will have to work with us to make the necessary changes.
3.2 pm
Mr. Richard Spring: I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on securing this debate. It has been interesting not least because the four hon. Members who have spoken did so with a profound understanding—their knowledge of the area came across powerfully. It has
46WH
been an extremely useful and important debate because it goes to the heart of the horrific conflicts that occurred in the former Yugoslavia, particularly those of the 1990s. Indeed, some of those tensions continue today.
Hon. Members might recall an earlier debate when we touched on the broader topic of Serbia-Montenegro. The area covered by former Yugoslavia remains of considerable political and economic importance, and I echo the sentiments of the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) on that front. In that debate, I referred to the monitories within former Yugoslavia, albeit in the context of Serbia, including Kosovo and Montenegro, as dictated by the title of that debate. However, although our subject matter today is more restricted geographically, we are considering a broader area that includes all the former Yugoslav states—Serbia and Montenegro, Macedonia, Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina.
The ethnic patchwork of that part of the Balkans that was once Yugoslavia, with its inter-ethnic conflicts, is the main reason for the horrendous problems that engulfed Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina and later Kosovo. As has been pointed out already, it is impossible to draw neat lines on a map to create a contiguous state made up entirely of Christian Serbs, Muslim Bosnians, Muslim Albanians or Roma. We have heard about the patchwork quilt that covers the area, sometimes in conflict and sometimes more hopefully, with people living peacefully side by side. The different ethnic and religious groups intermingle in communities throughout the former Yugoslav states, and as in this country, that means the existence of minority groups in areas all too frequently dominated by other groups.
As in this country, and countless others, the rights of those minority groups must be protected from infringement by the majority. In the early and mid-1990s, the opposite occurred in the former Yugoslavia, leading to conflict, the massive loss of life that we have heard about this afternoon, political implosions and a flood of tragic refugees from the minority groups into many different countries, including the UK.
Because of the nature of the region, it is tempting to examine the issue country by country, which I shall do in a moment. However, it is also important to view the region through a broader perspective and in terms of principles, as I have just tried to do. The issue of minority communities is closely linked to that of refugee returns, which has also been touched on this afternoon.
In Croatia, although we hear little of it, the idea of refugee return is still contentious. As in many areas of the former Yugoslavia, the ethnic Serb population there constitutes the minority and is currently suffering prejudice and even violence on ethnic grounds. The Croatian Government elected in 2000 inherited unfair and discriminatory laws that particularly penalised ethnic Serbs. Remaining obstacles to the return of those who were Croatian and who fled during or after the war must be removed by the Croatian Government, which must continue to demonstrate their determination to counter such discrimination.
It is regrettable that, as late as last December, temporary owners of what was previously Serb property effectively took precedence over returning Serb owners until they could be rehoused. Although I understand the

47WH
difficult choices such a situation entails, it is fair to say that the rightful owners were unduly penalised. Will the Minister tell us what progress has been made in that area?
Despite those problems, the situation in Croatia is assisted by a climate that is more conducive to law and order than in other areas. Sadly, a security climate conducive to the return of Serb refugees to Kosovo does not appear to exist. As in much of Yugoslavia, residual tensions and ethnic prejudices remain, bedevilling attempts to create a multi-ethnic state based on mutual respect. I remember visiting Sarajevo many years ago, when communities co-existed side by side with people without any practical sense of their neighbours' religious or ethnic origins. Attempts must be made through education, as well as by more proactive political, legal and economic means.
In Kosovo, the ethnic Serbs continue to feel deeply vulnerable to violence and prejudice from elements of the Albanian majority. The place is still scarred by intercommunity violence and the large number of missing persons still unaccounted for. As one of the nations that intervened, rightly, to bring the violence in Kosovo to an end, we have a duty to continue assisting in building peace. The very limited number of Serb refugees who to date have felt that Kosovo is safe enough to return to shows that there is much that we, and the Kosovans themselves, have to do.
If it was handled with care, the return of Serbian Kosovans could help to strengthen the position of minority Serb communities within Kosovo. The protection of minority communities within Kosovo and buildings such as churches must be a priority. We heard from the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) of the terrible attacks on the wonderful religious heritage of the Christian communities. It is ironic that Kosovo is the one area in which real progress does not yet appear to have been made, but the one in which the international presence is greatest. Will the Minister enlarge on what specific steps the UK Government are taking to encourage refugee return and the commitments that he can make about the protection of the rights of such individuals as they return?
I turn to Bosnia and Herzegovina, where some progress has certainly been made. That slightly belated success in attracting the return of refugees is welcome and shows that linear progress should not always be expected, but is indicative of a restoration of the rule of law affording protection for all communities. The authors of Dayton placed great emphasis on returns of refugees and internally displaced persons, and although there was no immediate progress, we have subsequently seen an ever increasing number of people feeling safe enough to return to their original homes, which is hugely welcome.
Despite recent perceived setbacks, the trend has continued, and the fact that nearly 400,000 Bosnians have shown a willingness to live as minorities in areas governed by other groups shows how far Bosnia and Herzegovina has come. There is, of course, never room for complacency, but the determination to create the social, economic and political conditions in which that is possible shows that, with a similar determination, such progress could be mirrored in provinces such as
48WH
Kosovo, despite all its difficulties. What is needed is the will, and a willingness on all sides to forgive. I recognise what a tall order that is.
I have focused on the refugee issue because it is inextricably intertwined with the question of minorities in the former Yugoslavia, and with feelings of security and being an equal part of the community. The treatment of minority communities in the region and the willingness of refugees to return are indicative of the political stability and economic prosperity of the lands to which they are returning and the extent to which they have made progress on the path to securing the rule of law. I hope that the welcome moves towards economic liberalisation and the improvements in the economic base will continue.
It is also worth noting that, aside from regional stability, what goes on in the former Yugoslavia has a real and direct knock-on effect in the UK. That, alongside our humanitarian obligations, constitutes a compelling argument for us to continue to be engaged in protecting the minority communities in the former Yugoslavia and to create a safe and welcoming environment for the return of refugees. Many of those who sought asylum here at the time of the conflict will have an incentive to return to their homes.
Important progress has been made after the tragedies of the 1990s. I look forward to hearing the Minister explain what steps the British Government are taking to help remedy the situation—particularly that which I have described in Kosovo—and establish truly multicultural communities in the former Yugoslavia, with no individual or group living in fear of its neighbours.
This has been one of the most horrific episodes in European history for many decades. Of course, there are many factors that will give people hope, but I agree with the hon. Member for Gordon: the hope of some sort of process of enhanced democracy leading, ultimately, to relationships with the European Union, with all the incentive that that provides, will be a powerful motor to try to resolve some of the terrible problems that have blighted the landscape of Europe for too long.
3.13 pm
The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane): This has been a good debate and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) for having initiated it. He sketched out the broad picture very well and we benefited from the expert knowledge that the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) always brings to our debates on the former Yugoslavia. As he pointed out, there are minorities everywhere. Last year, I was in the regional parliament of Novi Sad, the capital of Vojvodina, where six language booths were needed just for interpretation among representatives of that small but multi-cultural part of the region.
It is important to break away, as we have done in this debate, from the notion that one community, ethnic or national group is somehow intrinsically better or worse than another. That is an attitude of mind. It is about terrorism and exploiting fears, often for criminal purposes. We have to deal with that. The ultimate criminal was Slobodan Milosevic. He took a country that 13 or 14 years ago was a model for communist states anywhere in the world—it had a high standard of living

49WH
and thriving cultural life in its cities, and its people could travel visa-free anywhere in Europe—and turned it into what we saw at the end of the last decade.
There are new attitudes of mind now. I know from my work, which involves travelling to the region as often as I can and receiving its representatives in London, that a distinct and new approach is being taken. As the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said, it is by turning firmly towards the European Union and using Europe to provide a set of benchmarks by which to raise standards and do what needs to be done so that the region can make progress. The road out of the past 10 or 15 years is the road to Europe.
That is why it is important that when parliamentarians, Ministers and party representatives travel to the region, we should speak positively about Europe and explain to our friends in the different Governments and capital cities of the region that the anti-European isolationist hostility that we get, alas, from some members of our press does not represent the broad mass of the British people and certainly not the future interests of Britain.
I shall try to deal with the specific questions that I was asked. I was struck by what the hon. Member for Gordon (Malcolm Bruce) said when he asked rhetorically whether we were making progress or going backwards. On the basis of two years of duties and responsibilities as a Minister, I can report progress in every area, so the picture that was painted of Kosovo, which may have been true in the first year or two after the conflict, is not a picture that many would recognise today. The Pristina that I travel to these days is a livelier, busier and more bustling city than it was a year ago and much livelier, busier and more bustling than it was two years ago. The indomitable human will to get on with life once murderers and torturers such as Milosevic have been removed from the scene is asserting itself in Kosovo.
I have read the excellent report by Amnesty International, whose work I greatly admire, but it reflects the position circa 2001. The atrocity to which my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) referred, in which 11 Serbs were killed, was the famous explosion of the Nis express. That disgusting crime was committed two years ago. Now, in many parts of Kosovo, Serbs can travel freely. In fact, the Nis express has been discontinued because it is no longer needed. There is now a railway link to Gracanica, that beautiful Serb city with a beautiful monastery that I am sure many of us have visited. I have certainly had the pleasure of doing so. Two years ago, the area was a fortress, with armoured personnel carriers, barbed wire and KFOR soldiers patrolling with machine guns; now, there is at least a normal railway link.
I do not for a second deny the fear, concerns and tensions that exist, but I think that when I was in Pristina a couple of months ago—I may have to refresh my memory—I was told that just six Serbs had been killed in violent incidents in the past 12 months and three of the incidents were believed to be the result of feuds or disputes within families or communities.
Mr. Randall: The Minister has an advantage over me: I have not been back to Kosovo for some time, although I hope to go shortly. I am not sure that the picture looks
50WH
all that rosy. On the night between 3 and 4 June, a family of three Serbs were killed in Obilic. The UN administrator for Kosovo, Michael Steiner, said:
"This is a heinous act and perfidious crime which was directed against multi-ethnicity in Kosovo".
They may say in Pristina that there is no problem, but they would say that.
Mr. MacShane: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, and the British Government condemned the Obilic attack, in which three people were killed. It now transpires—I am giving hon. Members the news agency reports—that it may have been an internal Serbian family feud, rather than ethnically or politically motivated violence, which is what we thought happened at the time. The hon. Gentleman was right to refer to the British Government reaction, but intensive investigations are taking place and they suggest that it may not have been an ethnic or political crime.
Indeed, Kosovan leaders were at the forefront in condemning the crime and visiting Obilic, which was a sensitive and difficult thing to do. Mr. Thaci, who was recently on a private visit to London, was also outspoken in his condemnation of the crime. I put those points to the House, not to be Panglossian, but to make it clear that, on the question of whether people can return safely after seeking refuge in the UK from Kosovo, the answer is yes. All ethnic Albanians can be safely returned. If they come from areas where they are in a minority, they might be expected to relocate to a majority area.
Mr. Gerrard: Does my hon. Friend agree that many of the incidents covered in the reports were not recent? I want to draw his attention to the report that was just released by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. It covers a more recent period and recognises that the situation has changed. However, it says:
"Notwithstanding the stabilisation of the security situation, the fear of harassment, intimidation and provocation remains part of everyday experience for members of minority communities throughout Kosovo."
The report acknowledges improvement but by no means says that everything is fine.
Mr. MacShane: I completely agree with that and one has to spend only a short time in any part of the region to sense the tension and fear. That is why I made a point of visiting an association of displaced Serb families, which now has its offices in Belgrade. It is important to maintain a dialogue, but we should acknowledge that more than 775,000 refugees and displaced people who fled in 1998 and 1999 have returned to Kosovo. We should not forget that Kosovans who fled for their lives under the tyranny and terrorism of Milosevic have been able to return home.
In Pristina, I had the recent pleasure of talking to elected Serb representatives who travel freely from different parts of Kosovo, including Mitrovica. They came to a party with Albanians and talked openly. Again, I am not trying to paint a rosy picture, but the situation is different from two years ago.
The picture is problematic in other parts of the region. Reference was made to Macedonia and the hard work of Javier Solana, the European Union's high

51WH
representative and Lord Robertson of NATO two years ago in securing the Ohrid agreement has helped to stabilise the situation. Again, there is a constructive relationship between the current coalition parties, one of which represents the Albanian community while the other represents the Macedonian community.
The situation is far from perfect, though, and I want to give the House a quick anecdote. On seeing the visiting card of elected members of the Macedonian Parliament, I was surprised to see that the Albanian political leaders had on one side of their card their name and titles in English and on the other side their name and titles in Cyrillic. I asked why they did not have one in Albanian, and I was told that it was not in the Ohrid agreement; in other words, if it is not stipulated in the Ohrid agreement then it is not going to happen.
The British Government are making a small contribution to help to provide interpretation equipment for the national Parliament so that people can speak in their own language—a point of fundamental principle in bilingual nations such as Canada and Switzerland. It had not happened before. That is a way in which we can collectively help people to have some sense of not being under threat because they come from a minority community.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby, asked me about Hungarian communities travelling across what will now be the EU border into Hungary. That is a problem all around the new frontiers of the EU. I was in south-eastern Poland recently. The Ukraine has many Polish villages and there will now be an EU frontier there. I think that local arrangements can be made, but it was always the case as the EU expanded and had a common frontiers policy that—whether it was in relation to Switzerland or wherever—local arrangements would have to be made. We will have to edge these things through but not make them into a major issue of difference.
The challenges today are the same as two years ago. We need the whole of the region to establish the rule of law. Without that, nothing works and citizens have no protection. The Milosevic era was the disintegration of the rule of law. One cannot have democracy or prosperity in those circumstances. The rule of law
52WH
requires effective and honest law enforcement agencies. We also need efficient and impartial courts. It means fighting organised crime, and highlighting the need to combat organised crime has been a focal point of Foreign Office work in the region. It will be discussed at the summit meeting of all western Balkan leaders at Thessaloniki this Saturday. It also means respecting the international rule of law, in particular the authority of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. I congratulate in front of the House the determination of the Belgrade authorities in arresting Veselin Sljivancanin last week in Belgrade, from where he was transferred up to the Hague, despite resistance. We are still waiting to get Mladic and Karadzic and we are still waiting in Croatia to get Gotovina. We need the ICTY to be fully complied with.
As a second challenge we need to reform the economies. As the hon. Member for Gordon pointed out—I believe he was quoting Lord Ashdown, who is doing an outstanding job in Bosnia and Herzegovina—investment does not go where it senses insecurity. Money in a sense is a coward. Until we sort out some of the organised crime, corruption and law and order problems, the region will not attract the investment it needs.
The third challenge is to strengthen democracy, not via elections—I think Lord Ashdown pointed out that if anything, there may be too many politicians and elections in the region—but the idea of democracy in terms of a free and responsible media, and constitutional checks and balances. The British Government are actively engaged in trying to meet those challenges. I was grateful 18 months ago when the hon. Member for Uxbridge was able to visit Macedonia. As the Minister responsible for the region I am happy to make every effort to encourage parliamentarians to visit to obtain the most up-to-date reports on the situation on the ground.
We now have an opportunity to move away from the past and the settling of historical accounts into arguing for a clear new perspective for the entire region. That perspective is called Europe. It will take time; how long it will take depends entirely on the determination of the regions—the future lies in their hands. If they search with us to be good partners in the new European Union, the western Balkans can have a much better future.

Crime and Drugs (Plymouth)
3.30 pm
Linda Gilroy: I congratulate the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety on her promotion. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has put together a formidable team to join her in her new post: the Under-Secretaries of State for the Home Department, my hon. Friends the Members for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) and for Slough (Fiona MacTaggart), and the Minister for Citizenship and Immigration. That bodes well for success in a Department to which we all look to solve many of the huge challenges that face our constituents. I want to cover one such challenge—drugs and crime—in this short debate.
Plymouth has had a successful track record in fighting crime. It is an example of a can-do city that creatively develops its own solutions in a way that fully supports prevention-focused Government policy. In June 2001, I had an Adjournment debate that celebrated that track record. Sadly, things changed not long after that, and I want to share with the Minister my concerns and those of the people of Plymouth about what is happening in our city, especially about the link between crime and drugs and what we need to do to tackle it.
The Minister will be pleased to hear that the number of drug-related deaths in Devon and Cornwall fell from 86 in 1999 to 69 last year. Does she share our concern, however, that drug deaths in Plymouth have nearly doubled from nine to 17 in the same period and more than trebled since 1997, when there were five? Each of those deaths is a tragedy for the people close to those who died and a source of huge frustration for our public services, especially the coroner, Nigel Meadows, and Judge Taylor and Chief Superintendent John Isaac, each of whom has given more thought, attention and personal commitment than is the norm. That is very much in line with what the Home Secretary recently called for in visible and accountable public servants.
That commitment to partnership work is reflected in our crime figures. I ask my hon. Friend to imagine having had one of the first community safety partnerships in the country with the sort of track record that I described in 2001. Then, I was able to tell our hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East (Mr. Ainsworth), who responded in that debate, that in the 12 months to March 2001, even figures for violent crime were going down in all but one of the eight wards in my constituency. That was at a time when that was not the trend in the rest of the country and against the background of a substantial problem of heroin addiction. Vehicle crime had been driven down by 50 per cent., and burglary by 60 per cent. in the previous six years. I said then that it would become more challenging to keep bearing down on crime in that way. Little did I know how true that would be. I highlighted the work of the arrest referral scheme and what the coroner was doing to alert young people to the dangers of drugs.
Sadly, Plymouth is now experiencing a period of rising crime. It has seen a rise in burglary and vehicle crimes during the past year. The new crime-counting rules introduced nationally last April have had an
54WH
impact on figures, but there is no doubt that drugs and stealing to feed a habit are contributing substantially to those increases. In 2002–03, domestic burglaries rose by 22.4 per cent. against the reduction target of 12 per cent.—a reasonable target when set against recent pre-crack trends. That target was achieved by neighbouring south and west Devon's basic command unit, which does not experience the same acquisition crime/drugs profile. Vehicle crime rose by 14 per cent. against a reduction target of 5 per cent.
However, Plymouth achieved a 12.5 per cent. increase in arrests for class A drugs and a 52.6 per cent. reduction in recorded public disorder offences, as well as a 7.5 per cent. fall in road casualties, which demonstrates that our BCU still has the capacity to succeed in tackling some of our key crime challenges. Plymouth led the way. It was a trail-blazer in innovative partnership work to tackle drugs and substance abuse. We have a very robust and respected arrest referral scheme, which has been operating since 1995.
It was the innovative partnership of John Isaac—now our chief superintendent—and Judge Taylor, resident judge for Plymouth, that led to the introduction of Fast Track, making the simple but effective link between offenders with drug problems and treatment by use of a probation order. That was the cast from which drug treatment and testing orders were formed and legislated for.
As a result of that initiative, domestic burglary was reduced by 57 per cent. That was made possible by providing immediate access to treatment. More recently, offenders known to be involved in crime but not currently in the criminal justice system, have been identified and offered immediate treatment. The Plymouth seamless access to drug treatment initiative aspires to a self-sufficient drug treatment team with the aim of enabling rapid entry to treatment for drug users who commit crime to pay for their drugs at whatever stage they may be in the criminal justice system.
As Chief Superintendent John Isaac pointed out recently, however:
"While we have got up to 2,500 heroin users turning to crime involving property to convert it into cash to buy drugs, it will continue."
The number of crack cocaine users in Plymouth has increased over the last year. It is estimated that just one crack addict needs between £10,000 and £20,000 a year to feed their habit, and the majority of that money is obtained by crime. There are about 40 areas—half in London, but sadly now including Plymouth—where a significant number of drug users use crack as their primary drug of choice. Heroin addiction was a bad enough problem, but crack addiction and markets have an even more damaging effect on local communities. I raised Plymouth's crack problem here in Westminster Hall with my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East, then a Home Office Minister, at the cross-cutting Question Time just a couple of weeks ago. I told him how the problem had developed in Plymouth after a successful blitz on supplies in London through Project Trident.
Heroin makes people's lives a misery—the people who use it, their families and their neighbours. It leads to crime; four out of five addicts say that they fund their habit by stealing. Deprived communities such as those

55WH
in my constituency suffer from all aspects of drugs more than most. My hon. Friend the Minister is familiar with a similar situation in her constituency. However, crack is even more devastating than heroin. It costs more, and I understand that the craving and the need for treatment are more spontaneously demanding. Therefore, it has even stronger links to crime, especially violent crime.
Although our police moved smartly through Project Ovidian in Devon and Cornwall to deal with some of the worst aspects of the problem, crack is now established in Plymouth. I appreciate that new money and new approaches through our drug action team are coming, and that the pooled treatment budget in Plymouth is increasing from £1.2 million to £1.6 million—a 30 per cent. rise over the three years of the current comprehensive spending review. However, we still need to complete the loop to create the virtuous circle envisaged in the seamless drugs action project. That is the subject of a £1.1 million bid under invest to save round 6, mainly to provide services for the 600 prisoners per annum who return to Plymouth and cannot access such a service, and so return to crime.
That will indeed be an investment to save: to save wasting the effort that people in Exeter put into rehabilitating people while they are in prison; to save the £1 million-plus cost a week to victims of burglary and theft in Plymouth; to save the human misery of drug addicts, those close to them and their neighbours and communities; and to save wasting the significant investment which is now taking place in our communities through the neighbourhood renewal fund. It will build on the investment that we have already had in police resources.
Police numbers are rising, and new partnerships between the police and the local community are being created to combat crime. Since 2001, 211 more police officers have been recruited in Devon and Cornwall, making a total of 3,145 police to tackle crime locally. There are 117 more full-time equivalent police officers in Plymouth than in 1997. Recorded crime in Devon and Cornwall fell by 5.4 per cent. in the year to March 2002, which was better than the national average.
As I said, the pooled treatment budget for the drug action team increased by 17 per cent. last year and will increase by 30 per cent. over the three years of the current spending round. However, not only more money but smarter working will be needed, and there is wholehearted commitment in Plymouth to local partnership through the drugs action team framework initiated by the Government. The innovative partnership approach of John Isaac, who is now our chief superintendent in Plymouth BCU, made the simple but effective link between criminal activity and drug use and targeted those people for treatment, at whatever stage they were in the criminal justice system.
I hope that the Minister will help by ensuring full and proper consideration by the Treasury of that invest to save round 6 bid. I promise her that the money will be well used, and that she will see Plymouth's usual level of commitment and innovation to ensure its best use in meeting the Government goals that we share. I hope that my hon. Friend will also recognise the role played by all the people that I have mentioned in trying to turn the tide of the dreadful impact of drugs on our
56WH
community. I would particularly like to pay tribute to the Harbour centre—a voluntary group that was established many years ago to tackle alcohol abuse, but subsequently focused on the drugs problem as that emerged in Plymouth.
I shall also mention the health teams. We had a health action zone in Plymouth, which made a significant contribution to preparing the way for the drugs action team. The drugs action team brings all the partners together, to identify ways in which they can co-operate, to ensure that they are all singing from the same hymn sheet and to make the best use of resources.
I also pay tribute to the responsible attitude of and the role played by our local newspaper. It is about to cooperate with the police to raise awareness and act as a channel between Plymouth people and the police to crack down on drug dealers who blight the lives of people in our communities. I am sure that the Minister will watch with interest how that local newspaper brings to bear the journalistic skill that won it the accolade of regional newspaper of the year in recent years.
The editor, Alan Qualtrough, is working closely with the police on a campaign to clamp down on the supply side of the drugs challenge in our city, which of course must be tackled at the same time as the treatment side, although that has been the main subject of this debate. The campaign will invite the public to co-operate in shopping drug dealers in their community to the police. The police will staff a special hotline during the campaign. In the coming weeks, a series of articles will examine issues related to the acquisition, legality and consequences of drugs, as well as the many police successes in enforcing the law on drugs in Plymouth.
Mr. Qualtrough tells me that Jayne Freer will be the lead journalist working on the campaign. Since she has been shortlisted for the prestigious regional news reporter of the year award for her previous coverage of that serious issue—examining how the police have already been able to get at some of the serious drug-dealing networks—I think that we can look forward to a robust, hard-hitting and effective campaign attempting to turn the tide of this dreadful scourge.
In summary, we have enterprising public services, a quality local community newspaper and a strong record of communities and people working in partnership. That record was established through the trail-blazing community safety partnership. Just as Fast Track was the predecessor of drug treatment and testing orders, coining out of the Morgan report in the mid-1990s, the voluntary initiative of the Labour-led Plymouth council and the local police unit paved the way for what became the crime and disorder reduction partnerships that were introduced in the early years of this Government. Nowhere can show more than Plymouth how a community faced with some of the most challenging problems can become one of the most difficult places to deal in drugs.
3.45 pm
The Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Sutton (Linda Gilroy) on securing the debate and on her tremendously powerful contribution on behalf of the

57WH
community. She works tirelessly for local people on crime reduction and regeneration and encourages them to feel that they can make a difference and turn the area round. I had the pleasure of visiting a regeneration partnership in my hon. Friend's constituency to discuss the issues with local people. She cares deeply about this matter.
It is vital to break the link between drugs and crime, as problem drug misusers, especially of class A drugs, account for a huge proportion of the crime that affects our communities. Drug treatment works; for every £1 spent on treatment, £3 is saved in criminal justice costs, so there is good evidence for our investment. Direct funding for drug treatment, including that in prisons, will rise from £438 million in this financial year to £573 million from April 2005. Significant extra resources are being allocated because it is a priority. We will use every opportunity from arrest to court to sentence to get offenders into treatment to break the link between drugs and crime.
The updated drugs strategy issued in 2002 recognised the need for a comprehensive programme of aftercare and resettlement provision. It was no good merely getting people into treatment; other issues in their lives, such as education, training, housing and rehabilitation into the community, were also vital, especially for those leaving prison. We must ensure that the gains we achieve when people are in custody are not immediately lost when they are released. We have been less successful in that aspect of the treatment pathway than we have in others. People must be contacted as soon as they are released. It is crucial that they have a support system and appropriate treatment in the right place at the right time.
I have a key role in delivering the drugs strategy in communities. To strengthen the links between drugs and crime reduction strategies, we want drug action teams in unitary authorities to merge with their local crime and disorder partnerships to ensure that there is an integrated process. For too long, people in the crime and disorder partnership have mirrored those in the drug action partnership. Bringing the two together will have a significant advantage as it will help us to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of planning and delivery, and it will gladden our hearts if we can cut bureaucracy in drug treatments, for example, in reducing the number of funding streams and the amount of administration. That is a top priority.
As the trail-blazing partnership in my hon. Friend's constituency has shown, good local partnerships throughout the country have delivered dramatic improvements in services. Waiting times are falling; the number of drug misusers entering treatment rose by 7.5 per cent. in the last period for which we have the figures, and we are on track to deliver the target of doubling the number of problem drug misusers in treatment in the next few years. Every area now has a young people's substance misuse plan to try to stop young people today becoming drug misusers tomorrow.
We have a good national strategy, but my hon. Friend is right to say that a minority of local partnerships are not performing well, and we must invest time and energy in helping them to improve their performance. In some cases, where partnerships are struggling or failing to deliver, we have directly intervened through the Government offices for the regions and the National
58WH
Treatment Agency for Substance Misuse. We are already doing that in Bristol, and the Government office for the south-west is considering how to evaluate how well the partnerships are working, in order to make them more efficient. We are expecting a report in July with recommendations about practical action to support the partnerships.
In the case of Plymouth we are, as my hon. Friend acknowledged, investing more than £2 million this year to help to tackle the problems of drugs and crime, which includes bringing down waiting times for treatment, which is important. The pooled treatment budget for this year is nearly £1.4 million, which is an increase of £202,000 on last year. Moreover, there is £250,000 for arrest referral, £224,000 for communities against drugs and £221,000 under the borough commanders fund, so there is a range of funding streams into drug treatment in Plymouth.
Plymouth has the second-largest pooled treatment budget allocation per head in the south-west region; it is second only to Bristol. I hope that that is a reflection of the issues that my hon. Friend has outlined today. The 17 per cent. increase in the allocation for Plymouth this year is in addition to a minimum 30 per cent. increase for all health authorities, and that is a sign that the Government recognise the pressures that Plymouth faces.
My hon. Friend also mentioned the importance of communications in the drug strategy. I commend the work of her local newspaper and the reporters who have been involved in trying to ensure both that the issue is right at the forefront of local communities' concerns and that local people feel that they can do something to make a difference. As my hon. Friend will probably know, we have just launched the Frank helpline service, together with extensive television and radio advertising. We are trying to make contact not only with young people but with their parents and carers, and with anyone who wants good, authoritative, independent and accurate information about the problems that drugs can cause and the harm that they can inflict. The campaign is very new, and we are looking forward to the evaluation, but I think that it will help us to tackle the problems that drugs cause.
There are signs that the Plymouth partnership is beginning to respond to the challenge, but I know that there are still significant problems. In the last year Plymouth has developed an integrated criminal justice team, which is funded by resources allocated to Plymouth under the drugs strategy which amount to about £1 million. That will target drug-using offenders; it is an excellent example of joined-up working to get the offenders into treatment; and it will, I am sure, impact on local crime. The team has commissioned a new structured day-care programme, filling a major gap in the available services. That will help to bring down waiting times in the other modalities of treatment that are available in the community.
The problem of crack has been recognised—my hon. Friend was eloquent in describing the misery that it causes—as has the new set of issues that it poses compared with traditional opiate dependency. Work is under way to ensure that crack users are supported through the existing drugs services, and there is now a comprehensive system of training for key staff, because it takes new skills to deal with the problem. The

59WH
intention is to integrate crack treatment into the Harbour service that my hon. Friend talked about, which is a major step forward in recognising the local problems.
However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to build more capacity and more treatment services to meet demand. However, that takes longer than any of us would want. We are starting from a low base on drug treatment, which was never a priority for previous Governments, so increasing capacity takes time. Doing so involves the training and recruitment of staff and the introduction of new services where appropriate, many of which will become operational as the funding feeds through. It is fair to say that the recruitment of staff, as in many parts of the public sector, is one of the constraining factors. However, I am pleased that we have exceeded our targets for the recruitment of new staff into drug treatment quite significantly this year, which is a sign that people are beginning to think that it is well worth pursuing a long-term career in drug treatment, which the Government are increasingly supporting and mainstreaming.
Waiting times for some treatment services in Plymouth have been far too long: indeed, they still are. I know that waiting times for detox services and residential rehabilitation have stretched to three months and that those for specialist community prescribing have risen to nearly six months. That is unacceptable, and waiting times must be reduced if we are to break the link between drugs and crime. However, I am encouraged by the fact that the wait for non-specialist community prescribing is down to four weeks, with good shared care with local GPs; that the wait for structured care planned counselling is down to four weeks; and that there is no wait for structured day-care programmes. That is significant progress. If we can continue with it, I believe that it will have a positive impact on crime levels.
Building treatment capacity is not about making the system bigger or simply having more of the facilities that are already on offer. We must get extra value out of the money that we spend. Ensuring that the commissioning process is effective, transparent and properly informed by all partners is a key factor. When partnerships are struggling and have a poor track record of delivery, I am determined that we should intervene to help and support them.
Linda Gilroy: Does my hon. Friend accept that Plymouth is not failing but has a successful track record? It merits support from the Department of the sort that was forthcoming from my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North-East in the round 6 invest to save bid. I understand that a decision will be taken on that at the
60WH
end of July or in August, and we should all work proactively towards that end. We share the Government's goals, and together we can help to achieve some of the targets, nationally as well as locally.
Ms Blears: Yes, I am very aware that the ethos, philosophy and practice of partnership working is exhibited strongly in Plymouth, and that partners there are signed up to delivering effectively. I know that my hon. Friend supports an ambitious bid in the invest to save programme to try to ensure even more drug treatment services. I have no doubt that the application will be considered extremely carefully and that a decision will be made shortly, during the next round.
We need to support partnerships in the next stage of development. The Plymouth crime and disorder partnership was a trail-blazer in its early days, and it has gone on to do some excellent work, but I want to ensure that all partnerships can deliver. We must help them to take the next leap forward so that they can become even more effective.
We have the opportunity to develop a strategic framework under the newly merged partnership. It is a crucial time for places like Plymouth to take that step. I hope that the local partnership grasps the opportunity, and that it develops a robust framework for the joint commissioning of treatment services to ensure the effectiveness of the local drug treatment system. The resources are being made available, and I am sure that the partnerships are committed to getting full value.
The development of the new commissioning structure over the next few months will enhance the capacity, quality and effectiveness of the treatment system. I want to ensure, at both national and Government office level, that we give all partners enough support to ensure that they can serve my hon. Friend's constituents, who are so greatly in need of those services. That will be a lesson for us all. We need to work collaboratively nationally, regionally and locally in our communities; only by working together can we get better results. It is my responsibility to simplify the bureaucracy so that staff can spend more time delivering services instead of dealing with administration. I am committed to trying to achieve that.
Once again, I commend my hon. Friend for her debate. Once again, she has exhibited how much of a champion she is for the people of Plymouth. I have no doubt that the partnership will go from strength to strength, delivering some excellent treatment services in the community. If it breaks the link between drugs and crime, it will reduce the misery and personal anguish that drugs cause to all communities. My hon. Friend knows as well as anyone the distress and difficulties that drugs cause to her community, and she is doubtless an effective player in ensuring that such distress is dramatically reduced.

Stamp Duty (Edinburgh)
4 pm
John Barrett: I welcome the opportunity to discuss the impact that stamp duty is having not just on my constituents but on those seeking to enter or move up the property market throughout Edinburgh. I hope to be positive and constructive, and I am very pleased to see the Minister in his place. I am grateful that he has taken the time to come to respond to the debate. While he might not be able to answer all my points, I would appreciate it if he could write to me with the answers to some of my more detailed questions.
I must declare an interest in that I am in the process of selling my house. However, I hope to show that it is the impact that the duty has on younger people and the less well-off that causes me concern, and not the fact I will shortly be contributing to the Minister's Department. Some might he surprised about this debate. Many do not see Edinburgh as a city in particular need—in fact, most people see it as a booming city, with a thriving tourism industry and a strong local economy. For the most part, that assessment is true. Having said that, I remember sitting in this very Chamber last week during a debate on the impact of the London Olympic bid on the rest of the country. Hon. Members from the north of England complained strongly that a rich and prosperous London would benefit from the Olympics at the expense of a poorer and more needy north, while hon. Members from London rightly pointed out that, within the overall affluence of London and the south-east, there are pockets of real deprivation. The same is true of Edinburgh, as is shown by its eight areas that are included in the national index of deprivation.
Stamp duty was first introduced by the Government in 1694 and was always intended to be a tax on the wealthy, or at least on wealthy property transactions. In the past few decades, there have been many changes to it, most of them positive. In 1958, the threshold at which stamp duty rates applied was £3,500. That was increased in 1972, 1980, 1982, and most recently in 1993, when the threshold for paying 1 per cent. stamp duty was doubled from £30,000 to £60,000. The 10 years since that change have seen dramatic changes in house prices in the UK, and in Edinburgh specifically.
To put it in perspective, the average house price in Edinburgh in 1988 was just over £47,000. The most recent figures from the Edinburgh Solicitors Property Centre show that the current average house price in the city is more than £130,000, an increase of 176 per cent. The increase last year in Edinburgh was 17 per cent. and, contrary to some predictions, the price boom shows little sign of abating.
Edinburgh is far and away the most expensive place in Scotland in which to buy a house—on average it is more than £25,000 more expensive than its nearest rival in Stirling. The price increases have had a major impact on the ability of a huge section of people, particularly first-time buyers who are trying to get on to the first rung of the property ladder, to purchase a house. Most of those people, when they do move, face an additional and quite considerable charge by way of stamp duty, because it is almost impossible to find a property costing less than £60,000 in Edinburgh. The ESPC tells me that
62WH
when the £60,000 threshold was introduced in 1993, only 32 per cent. of the properties sold in Edinburgh were subject to stamp duty. This year, 92 per cent. of properties were sold for more than £60,000.
The figures are clear. Massively more people in Edinburgh have to pay stamp duty than was ever previously the case. It is no longer a tax on the wealthy; in my city, stamp duty has become a basic tax on moving, and many people, especially those involved in the property market, are amazed that, despite the dramatic increases in house prices over the past few years, the Government have chosen not to review the threshold, as has been done on nine occasions since 1958. That has had a particular impact on some of my constituents, who have been forced to move because of redundancy—there have been major redundancies on the west side of Edinburgh in recent years; the large employer Ethicon is in the process of scaling down and, prior to that, Grampian Foods and Continental Tyres laid people off.
The chief executive of the National Association of Estate Agents, Julie Westby, has said that £60,000 is no longer a realistic figure. She has advocated a threshold of £120,000—the current average house price across the UK. Halifax Bank of Scotland and the Council of Mortgage Lenders have advocated a similar increase.
Serious implications also arise from the Chancellor's refusal to raise the £250,000 threshold at which stamp duty jumps from 1 to 3 per cent. When the higher rate was introduced, he promised that only 2 per cent. of property sales would be affected. However, I can tell the Minister that in Edinburgh today, the figure stands at 20 per cent. The Government must recognise that paying £250,000 for a house no longer represents a transaction carried out only by the wealthy, as it once did. Ordinary families are now hit with massive costs of £7,500 or more for average properties in the city.
My other major concern relates to the operation of the disadvantaged areas relief, which the Chancellor introduced three years ago. I stress at the outset that I very much support that initiative and appreciate the good intentions that the Chancellor and the rest of the Government had when they pursued the introduction of the scheme through the House and the European Union. Although 1 was not a Member of Parliament at the time, I recall from the Library note that the initiative met with little opposition or controversy.
As the Minister will know, many people have benefited from that relief. One who has benefited recently is a constituent of mine, Louise Lang, who is in the process of making one of the biggest investments that she will ever make in purchasing her first property. She is buying a flat in the constituency of the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), which comes under the EH6 disadvantaged area. The stamp duty relief more than halved her estimated moving costs, which had stood at £2,000. She told me that the relief had made a major and positive difference to her move.
However, the disadvantaged areas relief system is far from perfect. Three years after its introduction, the Government would do well to reconsider whether it is having the desired impact. I strongly believe that the way in which the relief operates has thrown up a range of anomalies. That is illustrated by the scheme's operation in the city of Edinburgh.

63WH
As the Minister will be aware, Scotland is unique when it comes to the relief, because the areas included in the scheme are determined by postcode rather than council ward. That brings a set of disadvantages and advantages. It is clear that council ward boundaries do not always respect boundaries of deprivation, although the boundary commission is always alert to the idea of keeping natural communities together.
When I learned that postcodes were used to determine deprived areas, I thought that that was a better system and would allow for more detailed and specific targeting of the relief. However, I quickly discovered that only the first three or four characters of the postcode are taken into account—for example, EH4 4 or EH11 3. In Edinburgh, eight such districts are included under the relief system. Roughly speaking, those correspond to Muirhouse in my constituency, Granton, Leithharbour, Wester Hailes, Craigmillar, Holyrood and Fountainbridge.
Broadly speaking, inclusion of those areas in the disadvantaged areas relief system is right and has had a positive impact. However, the decision to operate the scheme according to broad postcode districts brings with it a series of anomalies. One property in Muirhouse Green in my constituency is included in the EH4 4 disadvantaged district, so a person purchasing a house there for some £82,000 will not have to pay stamp duty. However, a person purchasing a flat just up the road in Wester Drylaw place, which is five minutes away and could be described as equally disadvantaged, will not be eligible for the relief and will be landed with a stamp duty bill of some £700. That is because, for postcode purposes, Drylaw is lumped in with leafy Craigleith, Blackhall and even part of Fettes village, which includes Prime Minister's old private school. I simply do not understand why my constituents in Drylaw, for whom an upfront payment of £700 is a lot of money, should be further disadvantaged in relation to their neighbours living just across the road.
In an even worse example, postcode districts EH3 8 and EH8 8, which the ESPC mentions as
"including parts of Holyrood and the West End which are now among the city's biggest development hotspots"
are included in disadvantaged areas. That means that while someone buying a small flat in Alan Breck in Clermiston in my constituency for around £70,000 has to pay stamp duty of around £700, someone purchasing one of the plush Georgian apartments near Gardners crescent at the West End might not have to pay a penny.
I do not know how the Minister can justify those disparities. Surely there could be a better system and some improvement to take more detailed account of local considerations. If the first three or four digits of a postcode can be considered, why not the fifth digit, which would help other areas in Edinburgh, especially those such as Drylaw, Clermiston, and even Ratho Station and Kirkliston, which I believe should benefit from disadvantaged area relief schemes? Those areas are left out because they have the same postcodes as other, more affluent areas.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: The hon. Gentleman has made valuable points about
64WH
the way in which the boundaries of stamp duty relief are drawn. Does he agree that that illustrates the necessity for a fundamental review of the way in which we finance housing and encourage housing to be built through the tax system and through the financial services industry, which the Chancellor has announced he is investigating? Does he accept that that is what we need if we are to address some of the fundamental difficulties for people on low incomes and first-time buyers buying houses in places such as Edinburgh? The problems that he mentioned are probably even worse in my constituency, where there have been even more substantial house price increases in some areas, and where it is now extremely difficult for anyone not just on an average income but on anything other than a high income to buy a house.
John Barrett: The hon. Gentleman makes some valid points, on access to low-cost housing and by first-time buyers. I urge all hon. Members to pressure the Chancellor, if possible, to consider stamp duty relief for first-time buyers. That would be a great change for the better.
I will make a few more general comments about stamp duty to raise some additional concerns. I make no apology for saying that in my view stamp duty should be abolished in the long term. Certainly I would like to see the Government work towards that aim. However, to be fair to the Government and the Minister, I also recognise that, because of the boom in property prices, the duty now raises a significant amount of money for the Treasury. The figures that I have—the Minister may be able to provide us with more up-to-date figures—show that some £3 billion is raised every year from stamp duty, compared with just £600 million when the Government first came to office in 1997.
Scotland contributed more than £235 million in stamp duty last year, so I accept that abolition of the duty would have a major knock-on effect in terms of the money available for spending on public services. However, there are a number of ways in which the Government can reform stamp duty to make it more simple and progressive. The structure of the duty makes it unusual compared with other taxes in the way that the different bands increase with the level of transaction, yet the tax applies to the entire transaction. There are major incentives for property to be sold at just under the three different levels at which stamp duty increases. For example, selling a house at £59,999 rather than £60,000 would save £600 in stamp duty. Selling a house at £249,999 rather than for £1 more saves £5,000. As a result, there is a strong incentive for people to sell fixtures and fittings at an increased price, while decreasing the price of the property to try to avoid stamp duty.
The director of the Council of Mortgage Lenders has conceded that fact. Research carried out by my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) has shown that, as stamp duty has increased, the number of properties sold at just below the threshold has also increased. The cost of that practice to the Treasury has been estimated at around the £10 million mark. If the Minister has any more up-to-date figures, I would be keen to hear them.
What consideration have the Government given to measures that would tackle this blatant tax avoidance? Why are the Government so attached to the current

65WH
structure of stamp duty? What particular advantages does it have, and why can there not be a more progressive system, whereby duty could be paid on the sale price over a particular threshold? There is evidence to suggest that that could be done on a cost-neutral basis. Could there be an exemption for first-time buyers, to allow people to get on to the first rung of the property ladder?
Finally, I have been very concerned about reports of recent Treasury discussion papers, which suggest that the Government are considering varying stamp duty with the economic cycle, on the premise that housing is relatively lightly taxed. I do not understand why the Government wish to tax and financially penalise people simply for moving home. I do not understand why that is something that the Government would wish to discourage.
I hope that I have spelled out the problems of the system as it stands, and why it has been affecting some of my constituents in such an adverse fashion. I do not wish to be too negative—I repeat my praise for the Government for some of the reforms that they have pushed through—but there is still some way to go. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments.
4.15 pm
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (John Healey): I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing the debate, and on the constructive and measured way in which he put his arguments. I also welcome the interest shown by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz).
As a result of the macro-economic changes and policies that the Government put in place from 1997, base rates are now at their lowest level since 1955. Economic stability is delivering rising prosperity and record employment. Real household disposable incomes have also continued to improve and consumer confidence is rising. Net household wealth in the UK has increased by more than 40 per cent. since 1997. Employment is at a record high and unemployment is at its lowest since the 1970s. It is partly because of continuing high employment that demand for houses in cities such as Edinburgh is so strong.
Continuing stability through the Government's policies, and in particular, continuing low interest rates, have more than anything else helped people to be able to afford to buy their first home. Furthermore, continuing low, stable inflation means that there is less of an artificial incentive to use property purchase as an inflation hedge. Continuing economic stability means that households are better able to judge their long-term commitments, such as mortgage debt.
Of course, there are more affordable houses in some areas than in others. That is true across the UK. I recognise that Edinburgh—as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West has explained—has experienced especially marked increases in house prices in the past year. He said that house prices had increased by 17 per cent.; that figure comes from a Halifax Bank of Scotland survey. He might be interested to know that the comparator is a UK average house price increase over the same period of 23.4 per cent. In Leeds, which is close to my constituency, the increase has been 29 per cent. In
66WH
Bristol, the figure is 28 per cent. In Brighton, which is comparable to Edinburgh, there has been a 19 per cent. rise.
I emphasise that it is buyers and sellers, not the Government, who set prices in the housing market, and consequently the amount of stamp duty that is payable. In the end, the market is determined by what people are willing and able to pay. Stamp duty is a very small factor in that. The hon. Gentleman, and my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith may have read in The Economist last week that the UK has extremely low costs for buying a home: around 4 to 5 per cent. goes to estate agents, solicitors and duty, while in most of Europe and in America those costs are at least 10 per cent.
I turn to the specific concerns that the hon. Gentleman raised about stamp duty. He cited figures for Edinburgh and the slightly wider area of Midlothian. In 2002, just under 30 per cent. of residential purchases were for property valued at less than £60,000. As he said, purchasers pay no stamp duty when the purchase price is £60,000 or less. Therefore, well over a quarter of residential purchases, which would include many first-time buys, pay no stamp duty in Midlothian.
For purchases where the purchase price is between £60,000 and £250,000, stamp duty is charged at 1 per cent. of the purchase price. In 2002, 64 per cent. of residential purchases in Midlothian were within that bracket. The average price paid by a first-time buyer in Edinburgh in the fourth quarter of 2002 was just over £75,000. That results in a stamp duty charge of only £750. In the traditional entry areas—including some in the hon. Gentleman's constituency—the average price paid by a first-time buyer was about £65,000, so many such purchases would have been below the £60,000 threshold and most of those who did pay stamp duty will have paid less than £700. There must be more significant factors for first-time buyers than that.
Stamp duty is a one-off charge, and it is often much lower than other charges that house purchasers face. The hon. Gentleman asked about the Government's policies and principles in relation to stamp duty. We are committed, with stamp duty as with other taxes, to target relief where it is most needed. We are not convinced that an increase in thresholds, which takes no account of the circumstances of individual buyers, is the best way to assist those on the bottom rung of the housing ladder. Indeed, an increase in thresholds might actually fuel house price inflation and make property less affordable for first-time buyers, as would removing stamp duty for first- time buyers, as he proposes.
John Barrett: Will the Minister outline any proposals that the Government have to assist first-time house buyers who are normally up against people who have a property to sell, and who find themselves at a disadvantage? Can they be helped?
John Healey: I said a moment ago that our policies are informed by wanting to target relief where it is most needed. I shall explain where we are targeting that relief and why we believe that that is where it is needed. The definition is not necessarily based on those who are buying property for the first time.
The housing market has been prone to boom and bust, and that has too often contributed to the UK's unhappy history of macro-economic instability. Indeed,

67WH
the hon. Gentleman will recognise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith does, the importance of stability in housing markets in increasing convergence between the UK's economy and that of the eurozone. A tax such as stamp duty, which progressively takes more yield out of a rising housing market, can help to dampen housing market fluctuations. Any moves to uprate stamp duty thresholds in line with rising house prices would undermine that valuable stabilising property of the tax.
The hon. Gentleman cited some of the advocates for a higher threshold and referred to a suggestion of £120,000. If we increased the stamp duty threshold to £100,000, the cost to the Exchequer would be £300 million. That loss of yield would have to be made up elsewhere, or balanced by cuts in public services.
Instead of an across-the-board increase in thresholds, the Government will continue to consider reliefs targeted at those in most need, and the hon. Gentleman has mentioned one of the most significant: the introduction in 2001 of exemption from stamp duty for purchases in disadvantaged areas where the purchase price is £150,000 or less. He described the policy as one informed by good intentions. I welcome that, and I am glad that it has helped his constituent, Louise Lang. She is one of 400 in Edinburgh who have been assisted by that stamp duty relief. However, as he expressed some concerns, let me dwell on them.
When the relief was implemented on 30 November 2001, it provided for an exemption from stamp duty in respect of all property in designated disadvantaged areas where the consideration, or premium, for a lease does not exceed £150,000. In this year's Budget, the Chancellor announced the implementation of an extension of the relief. That removed the £150,000 limit for non-residential property, effectively affording unlimited relief in those areas.
Mr. Lazarowicz: In my constituency, the public sector partnership leading the redevelopment of West Shore road, Granton—a major development—estimates that it will gain hundreds of thousands of pounds, or possibly millions, from the relief granted for commercial elements. It can already use the benefit of the scheme to redevelop an area in great need of regeneration. If my
68WH
hon. Friend the Minister passes through Edinburgh, I invite him to visit the area to see what good work the scheme has already done.
John Healey: I am delighted that the relief appears to be working well in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is designed to stimulate greater business and economic activity in areas that for too long have had less economic activity, fewer firms and fewer jobs.
In addition to the announcement about the removal of the £150,000 limit for non-residential property, the Chancellor also provided for relief from duty in the rental element of new leases executed on or after the Budget on 10 April 2003. The areas were selected using the indices of deprivation produced in each of the four parts of the United Kingdom. In each case, the index ranks areas according to an overall score achieved by measuring a range of factors relevant to deprivation. They include income, employment, health, education, poverty and access to services.
The national indices of deprivation provide the best available evidence of disadvantage, thereby allowing the Government to meet their objective of targeting the relief at the most deprived areas of the UK. In some areas, there may be pockets of prosperity. Similarly, some wealthy areas in Scotland and in England will contain pockets of deprivation, but are not deprived overall. I must say to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that the indices of deprivation are the best method of ensuring that the relief goes to those who most need it.
Some 135 of the qualifying areas are in Scotland, nine of which are in Edinburgh. The indices for Wales, England and Northern Ireland define an area as an electoral ward. The index applied in Scotland uses postcode areas, not wards, as the hon. Gentleman said. The Scottish Executive recently published an updated index of deprivation and will deliver final measures of deprivation in 2004. That programme of work uses wards, which he might find encouraging. We will consider the implications of this work in conjunction with the work being undertaken in England.
The Government will continue with policies that lead to low and stable inflation and will continue to target tax reliefs at those most in need of them. Increasing the stamp duty threshold could reduce the stabilising role of the tax. It would certainly reduce the revenue to the public finances, which would have to be recovered by tax rises or public service cuts elsewhere.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-eight minutes past Four o'clock.

TRANSPORT

  Congestion Charging
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on congestion charging in metropolitan areas outside London. [119414]

  Mr. Darling
  Apart from Durham County Council, whose scheme order was approved on 24 September 2002, no other local authority in England has submitted either a road user charging or a workplace parking levy scheme order for my confirmation.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent assessment he has made of the effect(a) congestion charging and (b) motorway road pricing may have on (i) road safety and (ii) congestion. [119417]

  Mr. Darling
  The responsibility for developing urban congestion charging schemes lies with local authorities. We would expect local authorities to evaluate the impact of any proposed schemes on road safety and congestion, among other things.

  At the national level we recognise the need for action to tackle congestion, but believe that the UK must have a proper debate before any decisions are taken. We need to look carefully at the implications of any national level road pricing, including the effects on road safety and congestion.

  Level Crossings
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions he has had with Network Rail on the maintenance of level crossings. [119415]

  Mr. Jamieson
  None. I understand that the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate have ongoing discussions at local and national level about safety arrangements; and that Network Rail has recently revised its level crossing management strategy to ensure that the risks associated with usage are reduced to the lowest level that is reasonably practicable.

  Potters Bar Rail Crash
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he plans to make a full response to the recent Health and Safety Executive report into the Potters Bar rail disaster. [119416]

  Mr. Darling
  The next stage is for the Health and Safety Executive's Railway Inspectorate to agree with Network Rail and others a strategy, including a timetable, for addressing the recommendations in the report. This will be published.

  Bus Services (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent discussions his Department has had with bus companies about improvements in the accessibility of bus services for disabled people. [119418]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We maintain a close dialogue with industry to ensure that Regulations which require all buses and coaches on local services to be accessible by 2020 are working effectively. Also, we have regular discussions with operators on meeting targets, including one for 50 per cent. of buses to be accessible by 2010.

  Rail Policy
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to visit Cefn Cribwr as part of his assessment of overall rail policy objectives. [119419]

  Mr. Jamieson
  There are no current plans for Ministers to visit Cefn Cribwr.

  Rail Services (Cotswolds)
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations he has received about rail services on the Cotswold Line; and if he will make a statement. [119420]

  Mr. Jamieson
  No such representations have been received.

  A50 (Stoke-on-Trent)
  Mr. Stevenson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the(a) original projected total cost and (b) the final cost of Phases 1a, 1b and 2 of the A50 road construction in Stoke-on-Trent was. [119153]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Stevenson, dated 17 June 2003:

  I have been asked by the Transport Minister, David Jamieson, to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the original and final costs of Phases 1A, 1B and 2 of the A50 road construction in Stoke-on-Trent.

  The A50 Blythe Bridge to Queensway scheme was constructed under separate contracts for each of the 3 phases. The costs were as follows:

  £ million

  Original tender cost

  Final outturn cost

  Phase 1A

  23.072

  41.815

  Phase IB

  28.414

  50.015

  Phase 2

  21.307

  30.706

  If you would like further information, the Agency's Project Sponsor for the A50 scheme is Frank Hayes He can be contacted at our offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham B15 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8382.

  Air Transport
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will publish the proposed locations for
  105W
  holding stacks resulting from (a) a new close parallel runway, (b) a new wide spaced runway and (c) two new runways at Gatwick Airport. [119954]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services study (SERAS) analysis has not attempted to identify proposed locations of holding stacks for any of the published consultation options. For all options, the SERAS noise appraisal required nominal aircraft departure and arrival routes to be drawn up.

  If the air transport White Paper supports any option, and as part of any detailed design and project definition, additional work would be needed to optimise these routes and the air traffic control arrangements more generally.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the effect on the volume of traffic on(a) the M25, (b) the M23 and (c) other roads of (i) a new close parallel runway, (ii) a new wide spaced runway and (iii) two new runways at Gatwick Airport. [119955]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The South East and East of England Regional Air Services Study (SERAS) included an assessment of the type of road and rail infrastructure that would be needed both to connect the airport options to the strategic network and the type and scale of improvements that might be required on the strategic network.

  The results of these appraisals for the Gatwick options are summarised in "The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom: South East (second edition)" main consultation document, sections 8.16 to 8.20. Further details are contained in chapter 8.5 of the SERAS Stage Two Appraisal Findings report.

  Copies of these documents are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will commission an independent review of industry-funded research on air quality issues relating to his consultation on the future development of air transport in the South East. [119953]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Recent research into the air quality situation at Heathrow Airport is being published by British Airways and BAA plc as part of their responses to the Government's consultation on the future development of air transport in South East England. This new research will be assessed rigorously by the Government as part of the overall analysis of consultation responses.

  Children's Car Seats
  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what recent representations the Department has received about the criteria for assessing the safety of children's car seats; and if he will make a statement. [119164]

  Mr. Darling
  The Department has received no recent representations regarding the criteria for assessing the safety of child restraints. However, the Department is active in its support for activities contributing to 106W
  improved child restraint standards. As representatives of the UK in the UNECE Group of Experts on passive safety, we argued successfully in Europe for the most effective requirements for the universal version of ISOFix including the provision of top tethers. This will offer a significant step in improved child restraints.

  Mr. Alan Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Department collates statistics about injuries to children while in car seats; and if he will make a statement. [119165]

  Mr. Darling
  Information regarding injuries to children travelling in child restraints is not collected nationally in the official statistics. However, the clear road safety message from research is that child restraints are a very effective means of protecting children in cars.

  Compulsory Purchase
  Vernon Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what compensation is available to tenants of landowners whose land is compulsorily purchased for a new road scheme; and how this may be claimed. [119810]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Compensation payable to tenants where the landowner's interest has been compulsorily acquired for a new road scheme depends on the nature of the tenancy, that is, whether it is residential or agricultural and its duration. Generally, a tenant is entitled to compensation for the unexpired term of the tenancy and any other loss of injury sustained as a result. The acquiring authority will serve notice on the tenant and invite him/her to submit a claim for compensation.

  I am arranging for copies of three booklets from the Compulsory Purchase and Compensation series to be placed in the Library, which contain information on the compulsory purchase procedure and rights to compensation.

  They are:

  Booklet 1—Compulsory Purchase Procedure

  Booklet 2—Compensation to Agricultural Owners and Occupiers

  Booklet 4—Compensation to Residential Owners and Occupiers

  Correspondence
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will reply to the letter from the hon. Member for North Shropshire dated 29 April about improvements to the A5 and A483. [119110]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend, the then Minister for State for Transport (Mr. Spellar) wrote on 13 June 2003.

  Cycles
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will introduce a statutory requirement for train companies to provide a minimum number of cycle storage spaces relative to passenger capacity on commuter rail services; and if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to develop an integrated rail and cycle transport strategy. [119472]
  107W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The Strategic Rail Authority (SRA) is currently considering, together with the National Cycling Strategy Board, ways to improve facilities for cyclists at stations and on trains. It will hold a consultation exercise on its proposals in due course. The SRA is expected, in examining proposals for new or replacement passenger rail franchises, to have regard to delivery of the 10-Year Plan for Transport, which sets out the Government's aims to improve integration between modes and to triple the number of cycling trips by 2010.

  Driving Standards Agency
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to ensure that the Driving Standards Agency introduces the new requirements under the Second EC Driving Licence Directive as an add on to the existing UK arrangements for motorcycle tests; and if he will make a statement. [119925]

  Mr. Jamieson
  European legislation adopted in 2000 requires Member States to conduct practical motorcycling tests that include extra and more demanding specific exercises than are currently contained in the UK test, in particular the inclusion of higher speed manoeuvring and braking exercises. Member States were required to implement these higher testing standards no later than October 2005, though the European Commission have indicated that they will shortly be bringing forward amending legislation that will allow a further three years for implementation.

  We consulted in 2001 about the new European driving test standards, which affect theory as well as practical tests, plus tests taken by learners for other types of motor vehicle. The responses suggested that that the new higher speed exercises in the motorcycling test could only be tested safely and to a common standard off the public road.

  Making provision for an off-road element in the motorcycling test would have significant estates and expenditure implications for the Driving Standards Agency. Therefore in 2002 we undertook further consultation about possible service delivery options involving both DSA and non-DSA delivery. The consultation period closed in April, and the responses are being analysed. We intend to announce our decisions later this year. These decisions will in due course be given effect in the domestic regulations that set out the driving test requirements.

  Kyoto Agreement
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what measures his Department is taking to contribute to the Government's implementation of the Kyoto Agreement. [119371]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The transport sector has an important contribution to make towards helping the Government to meet its Kyoto commitments. The 10 Year Plan for Transport, published in July 2000, envisaged a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) from the transport sector over the current decade, and some significant reductions against projected emissions of greenhouse gases have already been, or are being,
  108W
  achieved. The progress report on the 10 Year Plan, published in December 2002, showed a small reduction in CO2 emissions from road transport in the UK in each of the last two years, following a generally rising trend through the 1990s.

  The Government's plans for moving towards a low carbon transport economy are set out in the Powering Future Vehicles Strategy, published in July 2002, and in the transport chapter of the Energy White Paper, published in February 2003. Central to these plans are the voluntary agreements with car manufacturers which are set, by 2008, to reduce average CO2 emissions from new cars by 25 per cent. against 1995 levels.

  In developing transport policy, we give due weight to the need to limit emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants. The Kyoto agreement treats emissions from international and domestic transport somewhat differently. The forthcoming Air Transport White Paper and in the review of the Transport 10 Year Plan in particular will be taking account of the contribution the sector can make to helping meet the UK's domestic climate change commitments. The Department is also taking a leading role in the discussions required by the Kyoto agreement within the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) and the International Maritime Organization (IMO), on how best to limit or reduce emissions from international aviation and shipping respectively.

  Mail Transportation
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the relative costs of transporting freight by(a) road, (b) rail and (c) air, with particular reference to the transport of mail in the UK. [118688]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This is a matter for Royal Mail.

  Motor Cycles
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what action his Department has taken to ensure that local authorities introduce secure parking for motorcycles following his Department's publication of a motorcycle parking traffic advisory leaflet in 2002; and if he will make a statement. [119924]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The motorcycle parking traffic advisory leaflet was sent out to all highway authorities. It is, however, for individual highway authority to decide whether to provide secure parking or not, depending on local circumstances.

  National Travel Survey
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 3 June,Official Report, column 172W, on the National Travel Survey, if he will break down the information provided by region. [119535]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Sample sizes from the National Travel Survey (NTS) are too small to provide the requested detail and information by Government Office Region is only available from 1992–94. Some summary tables by region for 1992–94 and 1999–2001 will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Redhill Aerodrome
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what estimate he has made of the cost of constructing(a) a road link to the M23 from Redhill Aerodrome and (b) a rail link from Redhill Aerodrome to Gatwick station; and what discussions he has had with Redhill Aerodrome Ventures as to who would meet the cost of these projects were approval to be given for the present proposals to expand Redhill Aerodrome. [119654]

  Mr. Jamieson
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: We have made no such estimates or held discussions with Redhill Aerodrome Ltd about who might meet the costs of these projects. Chapter 17 of The Future Development of Air Transport in the United Kingdom (South East) consultation document sets out the broad surface access funding principles.

  Regulatory Impact Analysis
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 9 June,Official Report, column 593W, on the equal treatment and non-discrimination directive, what the results of the Regulatory Impact Analysis was; and if he will make a statement on how the EU Directive on equal treatment and non-discrimination will affect the recruitment of foreign seafarers and the UK Ship Register. [119652]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Draft Race Relations Act 1976 (Seamen Recruited Abroad) Order 2003 forms part of the implementation of the EC Article 13 Race Directive. A Regulatory ImpactAssessment was carried out. A total repeal of Section 9 of the Race Relations Act1976 was estimated to result in additional, annual wage costs to employers of around £40.5 million. Industry estimates, supported by the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, indicated that up to 400 ships would leave the UK flag if a total repeal of Section 9 were to proceed. To revise Section 9 of the RRA 1976 was estimated to present the shipping industry with negligible additional costs and to protect the substantial increases in the UK flagged fleet that we have secured in recent years.

  The proposals go beyond the requirements of the Directive: the amendment will prohibit discrimination on the basis of colour and national origins as well as on the basis of racial and ethnic origins as required by the Directive. This will provide more protection under the Race Relations Act 1976 to foreign seafarers recruited abroad to serve on UK flagged ships that will enter UK territorial waters.

  Roadworks
  Mr. Greg Knight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps were taken to co-ordinate the road works being carried out on the M1 Motorway north of Junction 26 with those under way south of Junction 25 on the same motorway. [119116]

  Mr. Darling
  I have asked the Chief Executive of the Highways Agency, Tim Matthews, to write to the right hon. Member.
  110W
  Letter from Tim Matthews to Mr. Greg Knight, dated 17 June 2003:

  I have been asked by the Secretary of State for Transport to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question about the co-ordination of roadworks on the M1 Motorway north of Junction 26 and south of Junction 25.

  There are currently two major sets of roadworks in progress between Junctions 24 and 27 of the M1. These are the Junction 24 to 25 maintenance scheme and a project to install an improved motorway communications system between Junctions 24 and 27. As David York mentioned in his letter of 9th April in response to your previous question on this subject, the two schemes were combined in order to co-ordinate the work and minimise disruption to road users.

  Both schemes were awarded to the same contractor, Geoffrey Osborne Ltd. As I am sure you will appreciate, there are advantages with this approach. As well as economies of scale, the work can be more efficiently organised and the contractor is allowed greater flexibility to co-ordinate the different type of work involved and reduce the length of time taken to complete the contract.

  The maintenance scheme is now due for completion in August and the communications work in Spring 2004. I should also mention that work to provide noise barriers and safety fencing at Junction 28 is due to start in late July and last for about 12 weeks. This will involve occasional night time closures of lane 1 with an associated 50 mph speed limit.

  If you would like further information, Iftikhar Mir, the Agency's Route Manager for this part of the M1, would be pleased to help. He can be contacted at our offices at Broadway, Broad Street, Birmingham, B15 1BL, or by telephone on 0121 678 8025.

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport for what reason highway authorities are not obliged to record their roadworks in the same way as utility companies; and what plans he has to ensure that all roadworks are recorded in the same way. [119557]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 places a range of requirements on utility companies concerning the recording of their works in the street. The Code of Practice for Maintenance Management, published in 2001, governs, among other things, the recording by highway authorities of their works.

  We are reviewing what changes might usefully be made to the current legislative regime for highway authority and utility works in order to ensure that they are carried out more efficiently and to reduce the disruption that they cause. We intend bringing forward a Traffic Management Bill, incorporating appropriate changes, once parliamentary time allows.

  Rural transport
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he last met the Chairman of the Countryside Agency to discuss rural proofing. [115582]

  Mr. Jamieson
  I refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs on 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 1017W.

  South Hampshire Rapid Transit System
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the South Hampshire Rapid Transit System. [119401]

  Mr. Jamieson
  When we approved this scheme in March 2001, we said that if the public sector funding requirement rose above a specified limit we would need
  111W
  to consider all available options, including whether the project should proceed as currently planned. Cost estimates have now risen substantially, and a review of the options is under way.

  Telecommunications (Fines)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many fines have been levied on telecommunication companies under section 74 of the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 in each year since the introduction of the scheme. [119550]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Comprehensive figures are not available at this stage. However, we have appointed consultants—Halcrow—to monitor the operation of section 74. They will be reporting to us later this summer, and copies of their report will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Train Drivers
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans the Government has to introduce a statutory limit on working hours for train drivers. [119372]

  Mr. Jamieson
  From 1 August 2003, all railway workers, including train drivers, will be subject to the provisions of the European Working Time Regulations.

  In addition, the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) are currently reviewing the Railway (Safety Critical Work) Regulations 1994 and considering whether the provisions relating to fatigue are adequate for all safety critical railway workers, including train drivers.

  Transport 10-year Plan
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many meetings he has had with passengers' interest groups about the 10-Year Plan. [118757]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend has had a number of meetings with passenger interest groups over the past year, at which a range of current transport issues were discussed.

  Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the outcome was of the Transport, Telecommunications and Energy Council held on 5 and 6 June 2003; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [118485]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The transport segment of the Transport, Energy and Telecommunications Council was held in Luxembourg on 5 and 6 June 2003. My right hon. Friend, the then Minister of State for Transport (Mr. Spellar) represented the United Kingdom.

  The Council agreed a three-part package on aviation external relations. This includes mandates for the Commission to negotiate an air service agreement with the US on behalf of the Community, and to negotiate oil specific Community issues with other third countries, while allowing flexibility for member states to negotiate and implement air service agreements bilaterally. We welcome this package as a pragmatic and balanced
  112W
  response to the European Court of Justice rulings in the `open skies' cases, and my right hon. Friend spoke in support of it.

  A general approach was reached on a Regulation suspending the use-it-or-lose-it rule for airport slot allocation for the summer season 2003 for application in summer 2004, because of the exceptional circumstances —the Iraq conflict and SARS—that affected passenger demand.

  There were written reports to the Council on progress on two legislative proposals in aviation, the draft Regulations on insurance requirements and protection against unfair pricing practices by third countries.

  There was a debate on a draft regulation on ship and port facility security. Further work will be done in COREPER with a view to agreement at the October Council. There was consensus that work should focus on implementing the IMO regime for international traffic and the possible extension to Class A passenger ships on domestic voyages (primarily those travelling more than 20 nautical miles from the coast). We support this Regulation, which will ensure the consistent application of IMO requirements agreed last December. We expressed our concern at the automatic application to shorter domestic voyages at Council.

  Council Conclusions were agreed on improving the image of Community shipping and attracting young people to the seafaring profession. We welcome this initiative and the my right hon. Friend proposed that there should be a review of progress during the UK Presidency in 2005, following a Commission report. This was welcomed by the Commission and the Presidency.

  Written reports were submitted to the Council on designation of particularly sensitive sea areas and on the outcome of the IMO Diplomatic Conference of 12 to 16 May 2003 to adopt a Protocol to the International Convention on the Establishment of an International Fund for Compensation for Oil Pollution Damage, 1992.

  Council Conclusions were agreed supporting the integration of EGNOS (project for enhancement of the GPS system in Europe) and the Galileo satellite navigation project. We are in favour of the integration of EGNOS and Galileo.

  The Commission reported on progress of the High Level Group of member states and acceding country representatives looking at future priorities for the transport Trans-European Network. The Group's report will be submitted to the Commission, which will bring forward proposals.

  Council Conclusions were agreed on the Commission's Road Safety Action Plan, entitled 'Halving the Number of Road Accident Victims in the European Union by 2010: A Shared Responsibility'. We welcomed the document and said that, where legislative measures are in prospect, they will have a much better chance of early acceptance by the Council if careful consideration of proportionality and subsidiarity issues is given beforehand. My right hon. Friend referred to the UK's good record on road safety, which showed the value of

  113W
  our approach. The UK was one of the member states singled out by the Commission as models for best practice in reducing road accidents.

  There was a written report on progress on the draft Directive on minimum safety requirements on tunnels in the trans-European road network. Several member states, including the UK, although supporting the general aim of improving safety, have had concerns about some of the detailed technical provisions in this Directive. The Commission recognised that further technical work needs to be done and that there is a need for flexibility in application. The Council will aim to reach agreement on the Directive later this year.

  The Commission reported on its plans for transport infrastructure charging. It plans to issue a proposal on a revised Eurovignette system for the charging of HGVs before the summer break. A number of member states called for rapid progress to be made on expected wider proposals for transport infrastructure charging. My right hon. Friend called for proposals which will support the implementation of the UK's own lorry charging scheme.

  No formal votes were taken at this Council.

DEFENCE

  D-Day Anniversary
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on official representation of the United Kingdom at ceremonies to mark the 60th anniversary of the D-Day landings in June 2004; and what the seniority of officers attending such ceremonies will be. [119338]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Department is working closely with the French Comite du Debarquement, in association with the Normandy Veterans Association, to develop a full programme of commemorations in France. The programme is still in the early stages of preparation. When it has been finalised, suitable representation at senior officer level will be made available.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what targets his Department has for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve these targets. [116650]

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Total UK costs (£ million)

  14.35

  20.04

  22.66

  25.24

  25.62

  32.63

  Average cost per room per night (B&B)

  43.44

  54.28

  59.11

  61.21

  63.92

  65.91

  Total overseas costs (£ million)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  3.29

  3.53

  4.62

  Average cost per room per night (B&B)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  75.09

  70.25

  70.02

  Note:

  Figures are shown for contract years of May to April.

  Increasing costs reflect an increase in the usage of the hotel booking contract from around 330,000 room-nights in 1997–98 to just over 495,000 in the last full year.
  114W
  Mr. Caplin
  All Departments currently have an interim target of 1 per cent. pa reductions in (weather corrected) CO2 emissions from their estate, relative to the base-year 1999–2000. It is expected that new cross-government targets will be agreed with DEFRA by the end of the year. A Ministry of Defence strategy for delivering the targets will be published when they have been agreed.

  Executive Agencies
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many people work for the War Pensions Agency; how many are employed in Scotland; what the personnel costs of the agency are; and how these figures compare to 2002. [119291]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Veterans Agency, formerly the War Pensions Agency, currently employs 959 staff, 16 of whom work in Scotland.

  The personnel costs of the Agency for 2001–02 are contained in the Agency Annual Report and Accounts which is available in the House Library. The Annual Report and Accounts for 2002–03 is expected to be laid before Parliament before the summer recess and will contain the appropriate information.

  Hotel Accommodation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on hotel accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) others; and if he will list the average cost per hotel room, in each year since 1997. [117560]

  Mr. Caplin
  This information is not held centrally in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, the Ministry of Defence operates a central hotel booking service and management information routinely provided by the contractor for the purposes of contract management enables a partial response to be given.

  Although bookings made through this contract represent the majority of all UK temporary overnight hotel requirements, a significant amount of overnight accommodation—particularly short notice requirements—is still booked outside of the contract and no centrally held information is available. The figures shown in the table reflect military and civilian personnel regardless of their employing management group but exclude non-departmental public bodies which do not use the contract. The average cost per room per night is for bed and breakfast:

  The Government publishes an annual report of Ministerial travel overseas. The total cost of Ministerial travel provided in the annual report includes the costs of accommodation. The information sought in respect of

  115W
  accommodation within the UK is not held centrally. All travel is conducted in line with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  Mr. Tony Geraghty
  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with(a) Ministry of Defence Police and (b) the Director of Public Prosecutions about the publication of a report by the Police Complaints Authority concerning the arrest of Mr.Tony Geraghty, a constituent, in December 1998; and if he will make a statement. [119383]

  Mr. Caplin
  None. However, Defence Ministers have been briefed on the outcome of an independent investigation that the Chief Constable of Essex Police carried out, at the request of the MOD Police Committee, into complaints made by Mr. Geraghty and others, following his arrest in 1998. The Investigating Officer's report was passed to the Director of Public Prosecutions, in view of the previous involvement of the Crown Prosecution Service. Mr. Geraghty has been formally notified that his complaints have not been substantiated. Investigating Officer Reports into complaint allegations against Ministry of Defence Police officers are not published.

  Pay Audits
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [117441]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence, in common with all other Government Departments, has conducted an equal pay audit following the publication of the report by the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) Equal Pay Task Force, Just Pay, in March 2001. The outcome of the audit, including an action plan, has been submitted to the Cabinet Office. Although initial audit focused on gender, the Ministry of Defence action plan includes provision for a similar audit to be carried out on ethnic minorities and people with disabilities. A copy of its action plan will be placed in the Library of the House as soon as discussions have concluded with the Cabinet Office.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence 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. [117474]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Ministry of Defence's Race Equality Scheme was published in May 2002 and sets out plans for complying with the general and specific duties under the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000 to promote race relations in the armed forces, the MOD Police and the MOD civil service. Copies of the Scheme are available in the Library of the House. The Department 116W
  is now actively engaged in implementation of the Scheme and the first progress report will be published in the autumn.

  RAF Bases
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what role the Ministry of Defence Police Agency have at(a) RAF Lakenheath, (b) RAF Mildenhall, (c) RAF Fairford and (d) RAF Molesworth. [119501]

  Mr. Caplin
  To combat the principle risks of crime and disorder, the Ministry of Defence Police (MDP) provides a civilian policing service to RAF Lakenheath and RAF Fairford from permanent complements stationed at those locations. MDP will, where appropriate and practical, provide a policing service at RAF Mildenhall and RAF Molesworth.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many RAF apprentices are on secondment and in training at RAF Menwith Hill; what the nature of that training is; and who is funding this training. [119503]

  Mr. Caplin
  There are no RAF apprentices at RAF Menwith Hill.

  RAF Manoeuvres
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the fighter aircraft flying in formation in the vicinity of Sizewell nuclear power stations on 10 June were from the Royal Air Force. [119096]

  Mr. Caplin
  Yes.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what notification was given to the managers of the nuclear power stations at Sizewell with regard to the Royal Air Force manoeuvres in their vicinity on 10 June. [119099]

  Mr. Caplin
  None. The RAF aircraft did not breach the Restricted Area around the Sizewell Nuclear Power Station.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason fighter jets flew over Sizewell nuclear power station on 10 June. [119100]

  Mr. Caplin
  The RAF aircraft which flew close to the Sizewell Nuclear Power Station on 10 June 2003 were flying in a formation holding pattern for a practice run of the Queen's Birthday Flypast. There is a Restricted Area centred on the Power Station; the RAF aircraft remained clear of this area.

  War Pensioners
  Jeff Ennis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many of the war pensioners, suffering from a wholly psychiatric illness, who lost incapacity benefit during the three years to 31 August 2002 appealed against the ending of their benefit; how many lost their appeal; and what the average change in net annual income was for each individual affected. [116589]

  Mr. Browne
  I have been asked to reply.
  117W
  The number of people receiving a War Pension because of a psychiatric disorder, whose claims to incapacity benefit ceased and who subsequently appealed was nil or negligible in each of the last three years.

  The available information is in the table.

  Incapacity benefit (IB) claims ceasing for recipients also claiming War Pension because of a psychiatric disorder, and the average amount of IB in payment at the date that the claims ceased

  IB claims ceasing for recipients also claiming War Pension because of a psychiatric disorder

  Average amount of IB payable at the date that the claims ceased (£)

  1 September 1999 to 31 August 2000

  200

  63.13

  1 September 2000 to 31 August 2001

  100

  72.17

  1 September 2001 to 31 August 2002

  100

  72.63

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  2. Figures are based on a very few sample cases and are therefore subject to a high degree of sampling error and should be used as a guide to the current situation only.

  3. Figures exclude IB claims ceasing due to award of Retirement Pension.

  Source:

  Merges of 5 per cent. samples of the Incapacity Benefit and War Pensions computer systems.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Solicitor-General what actions her Department and its Agency are taking to comply with the requirements of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002; whether she has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if she will make a statement. [118850]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers is fully aware of its obligations under the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations and believes it is fully compliant, having commissioned survey reports and held asbestos registers since at least 1994, the last such survey report and register being dated 27 September 2002. This identified only minimal presence of asbestos, requiring no immediate action other than a recommendation that the risk be managed by periodic inspection to detect any change in condition. LSLO has a management regime in place for this.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service will be reviewing and updating the asbestos information currently held for the Crown Prosecution Service Estate. The review will include planned assessments for all Crown Prosecution Service sites (111 sites). Where the Crown Prosecution Service is not the major occupier, the Crown Prosecution Service will remind the main occupier of their responsibilities to ensure compliance with Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002. An estimated cost of compliance is being produced.
  118W
  Serious Fraud Office

  A survey undertaken by managing agents confirmed there is no asbestos within the Serious Fraud Office's premises.

  There is no further action for the Serious Fraud Office to take in respect of the Control of Asbestos at Work Regulations 2002.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Directorate

  As a result of the Asbestos (Amendment) Act 1998, a survey of 26–28 Old Queen Street, the London office of HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, was undertaken. The building was found to be clear of asbestos.

  The Control of Asbestos at Work Regulation 2002 is due for implementation by May 2004. HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate, in conjunction with its landlords, will be conducting another survey of its London Office in order to show its commitment to the new Regulation.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department commissioned a revised and updated asbestos survey and register for its premises in Queen Anne's Chambers in September 2002 (last previous update 1998) in the light of the impending new Regulations at a cost of £3,664.25 It is not envisaged that any further costs will be incurred specifically to achieve compliance as we have been following good practice guidelines for many years.

  Departmental Catering Services
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General what the cost was of(a) the in-house canteen and (b) other catering services provided by the Attorney General in 2002. [1104250]

  The Solicitor-General
  A holding reply was given on 25 March 2003.

  Of the Departments for which the Attorney General holds ministerial responsibility, only the Crown Prosecution Service has an in-house canteen which is at their headquarters in London. The service is contracted out to a commercial firm and the cost of this facility in the Financial Year 2001–02 was £84,417.

  No other catering services are provided by any of the Departments for which the Attorney General is responsible.

  Some refreshments are provided for meetings and training events etc. on an ad hoc basis.

  The available figures for money spent on catering services for hospitality, training, meeting refreshments etc. for the financial year 2002–03 to date is as follows:

  £

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  6,307.93

  Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  6,835.31

  Her Majesty's Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  6,335.00

  Departmental Website
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Solicitor General if she will list the actions the Department(a) has taken and (b) is

  119W
  taking to ensure that the websites of the Department, its agencies and non-departmental public bodies are accessible to partially sighted and blind people; and if she will make a statement. [118845]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service is working towards improvements to its website to provide accessibility to individuals with visual impairment.

  This involves implementing the Office of the E-envoy's guidelines for UK Government websites that cover a range of accessibility issues.

  The guidelines include following the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (WAI) recommendations and achieving 'Bobby' approved certification.

  In addition, the Crown Prosecution Service will be seeking to achieve the Royal National Institute of the Blind's (RNIB) 'See it Right' accessible website logo for the RNIB scheme that promotes website accessibility for people with visual impairment.

  Serious Fraud Office

  The Serious Fraud Office has followed checkpoints from priorities one and two of the W3C Web Accessibility Initiative (recommendations) when the site was built.

  The Serious Fraud Office is committed to help partially sighted and blind people, and will consider what further work needs to be carried out on it site in order to help them gain access to its information.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate and Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate has recently undertaken a review of the content of its departmental website. The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers is currently undertaking such a review. As recommended by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, neither site uses Macromedia Flash or Shockwave software, animated Gifs, frames or pop-up windows. Font sizes within the site's text are scalable and their colour settings are adjusted by site users. Site links, however, have not been coded for recognition by speech software. This and the provision of reports as text files in addition to their current Portable Document Format (PDF) are being considered.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  We have three websites, each of which aims to be accessible to visually impaired people.

  The Treasury Solicitor's Department has been designed to be accessible to individuals with visual impairment, using current best practice. The site is currently undergoing adjustments to achieve full compliance with the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0, issued by the Office of the E-envoy.

  The Government Legal Services website has been designed in accordance with Cabinet Office guidelines for websites and general good practice. The site has achieved compliance for accessibility for the visually impaired as required by the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0.

  The Bona Vacantia (BV) Division websites were developed late in 2001 and meet the W3C Web Content Accessibility Guidelines 1.0. There are minor areas
  120W
  where further action is required to improve accessibility and the BV website developer has been asked to look at this.

  European Working Groups
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will make a statement on progress with achieving transparency in respect of the European working groups for which the Department is responsible. [105731]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 April 2003]:

  None of the Departments for which the Attorney-General holds ministerial responsibility are responsible for any European working groups.

  Parental Leave Directive
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General how many staff in the Law Officers' Departments have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive. [108357]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]:

  Crown Prosecution Service

  During the period 1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003, a total of 20 staff within the Crown Prosecution Service applied for, and were granted, parental leave.

  Serious Fraud Office

  No employees of the Serious Fraud Office have used their leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate

  No staff have had leave entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  Three members of Treasury Solicitor's staff, which for these purposes includes staff at the Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers, have used their entitlement under the Parental Leave Directive.

  PFI Schemes
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor General if she will make a statement on the expected saving to future funds from the private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003. [105767]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 2 April 2003]:

  None of the Departments for which the Attorney General holds ministerial responsibility have any private finance initiative schemes due to become operational in 2003.

  Staff Turnover
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Solicitor-General what assessment she has made of regional variations in staff turnover in her Department. [112759]
  121W
  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 14 May 2003]:

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers

  The Legal Secretariat to the Law Officers is based in London and has no regional staff.

  Crown Prosecution Service

  The Crown Prosecution Service does not consider the staff turnover in the majority of its regional areas to be sufficiently significant to justify detailed analysis. Consequently, the Crown Prosecution Service has not carried out a regional assessment of turnover. However, plans are being made to examine more closely the effect of staff turnover in particular areas in conjunction with the Government's request to look at the need for differentiated pay according to geographic location.

  Serious Fraud Office

  None. All Serious Fraud Office staff are based in Central London.

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Directorate

  HM Crown Prosecution Service Directorate has not carried out any precise assessments relating to staff turnover regionally. The Inspectorate currently employs 44 members of staff based in London and York.

  Staffing strategy means that many posts are filled by individuals on loan from other Government Departments. A significant proportion of 'turnover', therefore, relates to individuals returning to their Departments after their loan period has expired, and so any assessment of regional variations is unlikely to be of any benefit.

  Treasury Solicitor's Department

  None, as only 12 of the Agency's staff are based outside London.

CABINET OFFICE

  Duchy of Lancaster (Magistracy)
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if he will make a statement on appointments to the magistracy in the Duchy of Lancaster. [119456]

  Mr. Alexander
  When considering magisterial appointments in Lancashire I am advised by the 17 Advisory Committees within the county. The procedures on magisterial appointments used by the Duchy Office are the same as those used for the remainder of the country.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Afghanistan
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what recent assessment he has made of the humanitarian situation in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [118996]

  Hilary Benn
  The humanitarian situation in Afghanistan has improved compared to the situation last year, and is no longer an emergency. This is due both to an increased crop yield (up 80 per cent. on the previous year) and to much better snow and rainfall over the winter in both the north and south of the 122W
  country, which has eased the effects of the persistent drought. Refugees are continuing to return to the country, aided by UNHCR and the Ministry for Refugees and Repatriation, although at a slower rate than last year. Vulnerable households, such as women-headed households, internally displaced persons (IDPs) and disabled people continue to require assistance.

  Insecurity in the provinces outside Kabul continues to be a concern, and is hampering the operations of NGOs and UN agencies in the southern and eastern provinces. As part of a coordinated response with the Afghan Transitional Administration and other international partners, the UK Government is considering the deployment of a Provincial Reconstruction Team to one of the provinces outside Kabul. The Ministry of Defence will make a parliamentary statement on any deployment in due course.

  CDC Capital Partners
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will list(a) the countries in which CDC Capital Partners has closed offices since July 2002, (b) the location of those offices and (c) the status of the staff assigned to each office. [115359]

  Hilary Benn
  CDC has closed three offices since July 2002, as follows:
  Mexico City, Mexico: two employees have been redeployed to other CDC offices.Miami, USA: two employees have been redeployed to other CDC offices and four employees have been made redundant.Virginia, USA: one employee has been redeployed to another CDC office one has been made redundant.

  Gun Trade
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment his Department has made of(a) the impact of the trade in small guns in developing countries and (b) the recommendations of the OSCE conference in Prague on 20 to 23 May 2003. [119311]

  Hilary Benn
  The impact of the trade in small arms on development is of great concern both to the UK Government and other international bodies who are trying to combat the effects of this trade. The UK Government recently sponsored a 3-day workshop on integrating small arms controls into development assistance. A key finding was the need for further research and analysis of the development implications of small arms proliferation, including the impact of the trade in small guns. DFID will commission this research shortly, and aims to disseminate results by the end of 2003. The UK Government will also be playing a leading role in discussions on the links between small arms proliferation and development at the UN Biennial Meeting of States in July to review progress on implementation of the UN Programme of Action to Prevent, Combat and Eradicate the Illicit Trade in Small Arms.

  DFID did not attend the OSCE Economic Forum on Trafficking in Human Beings, Drugs, Small Arms and Light Weapons: National and International Economic Impact, held in Prague on 20 to 23 May 2003. DFID has

  123W
  however noted the recommendations of the forum with interest, and supports the OSCE's further efforts to address these issues. Many of these recommendations concur with our own assessments of the action needed to be taken to combat such trafficking.

  Indonesia
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if he will make a statement on the recent meeting with the Indonesian Trade Minister; and if he will make a statement in respect of action to implement a memorandum of understanding with Indonesia on illegal logging. [118764]

  Hilary Benn
  I met with the Indonesia Minister of Forestry, Dr. Prakosa just over a year ago on 18 April 2002 when the bilateral "Memorandum of Understanding to Combat Illegal Logging and the Associated Trade in Illegal Timber and Wood Products" was signed between Indonesia and UK. Since then we have done a number of things.

  First of all we are supporting a process to develop a working definition of legality in Indonesia. This is fundamental and it may sound straightforward. However, in Indonesia many laws govern different aspects of forests and forest industry and reaching agreement on an enforceable definition of legality is difficult. We are helping to bring a range of stakeholders together and broker an agreement that will allow us to move forward. We have started the process of piloting verification schemes that will be needed to confirm compliance with legal requirements. Allied to this we are supporting efforts to restructure forest industry and close down mills that rely on illegally sourced timber.

  The UK timber trade is taking this seriously too. Just last week, on the day the Greenpeace report "Partners in Crime: a Greenpeace investigation of the links between the UK and Indonesia's timber barons" was published, UK timber traders met with Indonesian suppliers in London to discuss common supplier assessments and third party auditing.

  Other countries are also beginning to play their part. China and Norway have signed MoUs with Indonesia that draw on that signed by Indonesia and UK last year. Japan and the EU are currently discussing agreements with Indonesia. Malaysia has taken action to stop the illegal import of logs and cants (roughly squared logs) from Indonesia.

  However, under EU law, a ban on illegally logged timber, can only be imposed at EU level, not at UK level. We are therefore working actively within the EU. The European Commission published a Communication containing a proposed forest law enforcement, governance and trade (FLEGT) action plan on 21 May 2003. The plan includes a proposal for new EU import regulations to address imports of illegally logged timber in a way that is consistent with our obligations under the World Trade Organisation.

  The Communication requests endorsement from Council and the European Parliament to:
  enter into negotiations for FLEGT Partnership Agreements with wood producing countries;
  124W
  present a Regulation setting up the voluntary licensing scheme, in conjunction with wide stakeholder consultation; and
  review options for, and consider the impact of, further measures to support the Action Plan, including, in the absence of multilateral progress, the feasibility of legislation to control imports of illegally harvested timber, and report back to the Council on this work during 2004.
  Member states are also asked to identify relevant national legislation that could be applied to address the illegal logging issue, and to inform the Commission of their findings.

  The purpose of the Voluntary Partnership Agreements and associated Regulation would be to prevent timber without a valid licence (indicating legal harvesting) from participating countries entering the EU.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development if the Department will ensure that plans for the distribution of food after the end of the oil for food programme in Iraq will give particular attention to the need to create an independent food distribution network free from political interference. [119310]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government recognise the importance of establishing a food distribution system which addresses the needs of all those Iraqis who are dependent on food aid. DFID's long-term aim is to create an environment which will allow these Iraqis to become self-sufficient, rather than reliant on food handouts.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what estimate has been made of the number of civil servants in Iraq who have not returned to work. [119312]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is not aware of any overall assessment of the number of civil servants in Iraq who have not returned to work since the start of the conflict. In a number of cases civil servants have been unable to return to work because of damage done to government buildings, predominately by looting. The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) is providing finance for rehabilitating government buildings.

  The CPA is now paying salaries and pensions for 1.35 million Iraqi civil servants throughout the country, including teachers, medical staff and police officers.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development whether the Coalition Provisional Authority has made an assessment of(a) the capacity of civil servants in Iraq to re-establish a working civil service and (b) the unmet needs of the Iraqi civil service. [119315]

  Hilary Benn
  The Coalition Provisional Authority is considering how best to re-establish an effective civil service.

  The Coalition Provisional Authority is now paying salaries and pensions to 1.35 million Iraqi civil servants throughout the country, including teachers, medical staff and police officers. Funds are also being allocated to the rehabilitation of government buildings.

  Sub-Saharan Africa
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what the value is of new investments made in sub-Saharan Africa by CDC Capital Partners by(a) country and (b) sector in the last 12 months; and what the projected value is of new investments in the area by (i) country and (ii) sector in the next 12 months. [115350]

  Hilary Benn
  Since July 2002, approximately £133 million has been invested in sub-Saharan Africa.

  Countries

  £000

  Pan Africa

  17

  Cote D'lvoire

  53

  Kenya

  14,000

  Mauritius

  470

  Mozambique

  609

  Nigeria

  228

  South Africa

  20,750

  Swaziland

  358

  Tanzania

  96,622

  £000

  Sectors

  Power

  113,017

  Agribusiness

  15,300

  Minerals/oil/gas

  3,000

  Funds

  1,300

  TMT

  281

  Financial Services

  34

  Infrastructure

  75

  It is not possible to comment on projected values over the next 12 months. It will depend on a variety of factors.

  Tax Relief (Drugs)
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Minister of State, Department for International Development what assessment the Department has made of the impact on African nations of giving tax relief for research on the development of beneficial drugs. [119187]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK Government is committed to significantly improving access to medicines in developing countries. We need to tackle all the factors affecting access if we are to make lasting improvements.

  Those factors recognised by the World Health Organisation (WHO) that can improve poor people's access to medicines are: affordable pricing, sustainable financing, reliable health and supply systems, and the rational selection and use of existing drugs.

  Clare Short chaired a High Level Working Group on Increasing Access to Essential Medicines in the Developing World, which examined these issues in detail and made a series of recommendations for action in its report of November 2002. Officials across Whitehall are taking forward these recommendations with key stakeholders.

  One recommendation was to encourage companies to increase research and development into medicines and vaccines for diseases prevalent in developing countries,
  126W
  namely TB, malaria and relevant strains of HIV/AIDS, taking forward implementation of the R&D tax credits announced in the Budget. The special tax relief for companies developing drugs and vaccines for TB, malaria and HIV/AIDS applies to expenditure incurred on or after 22 April 2003. As it is claimed by companies when they complete their tax returns, which they can submit up to 12 months after the end of the accounting period in question, the Inland Revenue do not yet have any information on claims.

TREASURY

  Government Contracts
  Margaret Moran
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of Government contracts have been awarded to social enterprises since 1997; and if he will list these. [119615]

  Mr. Boateng
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the use of financial incentives to encourage the use of domestic energy efficient products. [119062]

  John Healey
  The Government have already introduced a range of measures to promote energy efficiency in the home. The Government have reduced the rate of VAT to 5 per cent. on the grant-funded installation of new central heating systems and heating appliances, factory-insulated hot water tanks, micro combined heat and power systems, and renewable energy heating systems in the homes of the less well-off. The Government have also reduced VAT to 5 per cent. on the installation of specific energy-saving materials.

  The Government consulted on economic instruments to improve household energy efficiency during 2002 and a summary of responses has been published on the HMT website. Budget 2003 announced that, in the light of this initial consultation, the Government will shortly undertake further detailed consultation on specific measures to encourage household energy efficiency.

  The Government have also introduced other measures to improve the energy efficiency and tackle fuel poverty in the domestic sector, including the Energy Efficiency Commitment (EEC) and Warm Front.

  The EEC requires gas and electricity suppliers to encourage and assist their domestic customers to reduce energy consumption and to meet targets for quantified energy savings. Households on income and disability related benefits are currently provided with at least 50 per cent. of the benefits from the EEC.

  Since its launch in June 2000, the Warm Front Scheme, which provides packages of insulation and heating measures worth up to £2,500 to private sector households in receipt of certain benefits, has assisted over 500,000 households, helping improve the comfort levels and living conditions of some of the most vulnerable members of society.

  Euro
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the capacity of the Bank of England to act as lender of last resort in the event of UK entry to the eurozone. [112284]

  Mr. Boateng
  As stated in the EMU study Policy frameworks in the UK and EMU, published on 9 June alongside the assessment of the five economic tests,
  "The UK Government, in line with others, believes that lender of last resort operations remain a national responsibility for euro area members."

  Export Control Act
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether HM Customs and Excise have contributed to the review of the secondary legislation made under the Export Control Act 2002. [119314]

  John Healey
  HM Customs and Excise were consulted throughout the drafting stage of the secondary orders for the Export Control Act 2002.

  Iraq
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 7 May 2003,Official Report, column 687W, whether Iraqi imports will now be eligible for the reduced rate of customs duty under the Generalised System of Preferences. [119215]

  John Healey
  Eligibility under the Generalised System of Preferences is strictly a matter for the European Commission.

  Iraqi exporters cannot start to use GSP until administrative arrangements between the European Commission and the appropriate Iraqi authority are in place.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether HM Customs and Excise have changed the treatment of Iraqi goods coming into the UK since the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1483. [119322]

  John Healey
  As set out by the Department of Trade and Industry in a Notice to Importers, Import restrictions on goods from Iraq coming into the UK have been lifted in accordance with UN Resolution 1483, with the exception of cultural objects. All other imports from Iraq will be treated in the same way as all third country imports.

  Productivity (Planning Regulations)
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will commission an update to the 1998 report Driving Productivity and Growth in the UK Economy by the McKinsey Global Institute, with particular reference to the impact of planning regulations on UK productivity. [119308]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  Commissioning research on the impact of the planning system is primarily a matter for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  128W
  The 1998 McKinsey study was not commissioned by the Government. Planning was only a small aspect of the study. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no proposal to commission further research to explore this issue.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps the Treasury has taken with regard to productivity issues relating to planning guidelines, in response to the conclusions of the 1998 McKinsey Global Institute study of UK productivity. [119309]

  John Healey
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has responsibility for planning guidelines and, with the rest of the Government, has taken steps to develop proposals for reform of the planning system. The Deputy Prime Minister set out these proposals in "Sustainable Communities: Delivering through Planning", published in July 2002, provided further details in "Sustainable Communities: Building for the Future", in February 2003 and most recently updated the House on progress in "Sustainable Communities: Delivery through Planning" on 5 June 2003.

  Budget 2003 also set out specific steps on retail planning and development:
  "Productivity in the UK retail sector lags that in competitor economies. The planning system may be one of the factors affecting productivity if it restricts competition, innovation and choice. The Government is committed to ensuring the viability and vitality of town centres, and will review its guidance on planning for retail development to ensure that this is achieved alongside improvements in productivity. Revised guidance will encourage proactive planning for town centres and multi-level retail development to reduce land take. The Government will also ask Regional Planning Bodies to consider the need for, and broad location of, major new retail and distribution facilities in Regional Spatial Strategies."

  Scottish Parliament Building
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how much money central Government originally allocated for the planning, construction and equipping of a new Scottish Parliament building; and whether these funds were allocated via the block grant; [119892]

  (2) how much money central Government has provided in total for the planning, construction and equipping of a new Scottish Parliament building; and whether these funds were sent via the block grant. [119893]

  Mr. Boateng
  The costs of the Scottish Parliament are a devolved matter and are met from the overall Scottish block budget. No additional sums have been allocated by the Government.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the estimated costs are for winter fuel payments during 2002; what he expects the additional cost of paying a further £100 to those over 80 will be; what the annual expenditure allocated to the Warm Front scheme is for 2003–04; and what the annual expenditure is on the Social Priority Group as designated within the Energy Efficiency Commitment. [119057]
  129W
  John Healey
  The estimated cost of providing winter fuel payments in Great Britain in 2002–03 is detailed in Table 2 of the Benefit Expenditure Tables 2003, which are available on the statistics pages of the Department for Work and Pensions website.

  The cost of providing an extra £100 to households with someone aged 80 and over is detailed in Table A.1 of this year's Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 500).

  The funding allocated to the Warm Front scheme for 2003–04 is £152 million, from a total fuel poverty budget of £156 million. This year's level of funding will enable continued delivery of energy efficiency measures to some of the most vulnerable members of society.

  Under the Energy Efficiency Commitment 2002–05, energy suppliers must direct at least 50 per cent. of energy savings to a priority group of low-income consumers over the three-year programme. The annual expenditure will depend on the energy efficiency measures used to generate those savings.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Disabled Students
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he has taken to support the provision of university courses for disabled students. [117380]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government are committed to the principle that all those who can benefit from higher education should have the opportunity to do so. We amended the Disability Discrimination Act in 2001 to make it unlawful for higher education institutions to treat disabled applicants less favourably than others and to require them to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled students are not placed at a substantial disadvantage. It is, however, for the institutions themselves to determine which courses they will provide. Through the Higher Education Funding Council for England, we have funded the National Disability Team to promote good practice in learning and teaching across the sector.

  Education Funding
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to simplify the funding mechanism for post-16 non 'A' Level students at(a) full and (b) part-time levels. [117557]

  Alan Johnson
  The funding arrangements for post-16 learning are the operational responsibility of the Learning and Skills Council (LSC). I have asked John Harwood, the Council's Chief Executive, to reply to the hon. Member, providing the specific information requested, and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  The LSC is committed to: simplifying further education funding; reducing the bureaucratic burden; and ending the uncertainty of the current system. The LSC has recently consulted on this and the approach to
  130W
  funding adult learning. Our Skills Strategy to be published shortly will set out the way forward on funding adult learning.

  Education Initiatives
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make an assessment of whether the learning strategies recommended in the Assessment for Learning programme are compatible with mixed ability teaching. [117182]

  Mr. Miliband
  Successful use of assessment for learning is not dependent on a particular form of pupil grouping. The focus is on the individual pupil and the learning needs identified by good quality assessment of their work. The strategies involved—sharing objectives; analysis of performance; feedback, which identifies next steps; peer and self assessment and questioning, which uncovers misconceptions and encourages pupils to explain their thinking—can be employed in a variety of grouping arrangements.

  Educational Support Organisations
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether an educational support organisation, which is receiving national funding from the Learning and Skills Council, may also receive the funding required to establish basic skills under a national programme. [118068]

  Alan Johnson
  I understand that this concerns the access of a certain national learning provider to a national contract for funding. The Learning and Skills Council are driving down bureaucracy by introducing single contracts with providers who operate in more than one local area, and I have asked the LSC to talk to this particular provider about how best to move to a more simplified contractual arrangement.

  Further Education
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what growth in student numbers further education is expected to assimilate in order to meet the requirements in Success for All. [117676]

  Alan Johnson
  Success for All is a programme of reforms, which will raise standards across all post-16 further education and training providers, and will contribute to increases in both participation and achievement. We expect growth in participation in further education to play a major part in delivering our target that by 2010, 90 per cent. of young people by age 22 will have participated in a full-time programme fitting them for entry into higher education or skilled employment.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what proposals he has to reduce the administration in relation to FE. [117678]

  Alan Johnson
  The DfES and the LSC are determined to cut the burden of administration across the whole of the learning and skills sector. We will shortly announce the composition of an independent gatekeeper group to reduce bureaucracy. This group will vigorously challenge the Department and the LSC to justify new and existing administrative practices. It was one of the main
  131W
  recommendations of the Task Force chaired by Sir George Sweeney which reported in November 2002. We fully accept the Task Force's recommendations on cutting bureaucracy and want to see them implemented quickly.

  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of 16-year-olds remained in full-time education after finishing secondary school in each of the last three years in each local education authority in England. [117935]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Participation rates by LEA for 16 and 17-year-olds are published in an annual National Statistics Bulletin, "Participation in Education and Training by 16 and 17 Year Olds in Each Local Area in England". This latest bulletin is published solely on the DfES website: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/SBU/b0369

  Table 3 gives participation rates for 16-year-olds in full-time education by local education authority, 1998 to 2000, the latest year for which figures are available.

  Copies of the Bulletin have been placed in the Libraries.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will take steps to ensure that computers and other electronic equipment in schools use spell checks with the recognised English spelling of words and not the US spelling. [118876]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  This is generally a software issue. Some software applications do not use a UK English spell checker as the default, and it may be necessary to change an option within any particular application so that it does, before deploying and using the software. This default can also be changed after the software has already been installed.

  I have asked our agency, the British Educational Communications and Technology Agency (Becta), to provide advice to schools via their ICT Advice website, on how to set generic software to English language setting and also to provide advice to schools on being aware of this issue when purchasing software.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills 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. [117473]

  2001

  2002

  Qualification level

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Degrees and above and higher education below degree level

  19,000

  29

  25,000

  38

  A level + GCSE and equivalents

  28,000

  43

  23,000

  34

  Other qualifications

  18,000

  27

  18,000

  28

  Total

  65,000

  100

  67,000

  100

  132W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department and our non-departmental public bodies are fully committed to equality and diversity and to meeting our obligations under the amended Race Relations Act. The Department published its Race Equality Scheme in May 2002 in accordance with the statutory requirements.

  The Department's Race Equality Scheme identifies those areas of policy development and internal employment practice most likely to impact on reducing inequalities. All of our functions and policies are assessed for their relevance to race equality, and action plans developed for those assessed as having a high relevance. Implementation of these action plans will be monitored through the annual business planning process. Assessments will continue to be made once every three years. We will publish annually the results of our monitoring.

  Student Finance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to his written ministerial statement of 15 May 2003,Official Report, column 13WS, on bankruptcy and student loans, how many and what amount of student loans have so far been written off on account of bankruptcy; and if he will make a statement on action being taken to frustrate write-offs in advance of correcting legislation. [115178]

  Alan Johnson
  No loans have been written off since the statement to Parliament on bankruptcy and student loans, made on 15 May 2003. The Student Loans Company (SLC) will now take this forward.

  The SLC have identified 633 bankrupt borrowers, with a total of £2.4 million in outstanding loan balances to be written off. Against a customer base of 2.4 million and a total loan book of £10 billion, the proportion of affected borrowers is very small.

  It is not possible for us to prevent write-off of student loans on bankruptcy before the changes in primary legislation, which we have announced in the Higher Education White Paper.

  Training
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what level of training was undertaken by each social class grouping in Gloucestershire for each of the last two years for which records are available. [117556]

  Alan Johnson
  Figures from the Labour Force Surveys for spring 2001 and 2002 are given in the following table. The figures show the highest qualification level for which people of working age in Gloucestershire were studying. It is not possible to give a breakdown by social class for Gloucestershire because of sample size limitations and confidentiality constraints.

  University Students
  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will commission a study of the conversion rate for applications against offers for university places for students from lower income groups, broken down by(a) gender, (b) subject and (c) university. [117612]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government have no plans to commission a study of this nature. They will, however, continue to support through their Aimhigher Programme improvement in the attainment, aspirations and applications of a wider range of young people who hitherto may have failed to participate in Higher Education (HE). Continuing evaluation of the Aimhigher Programme will help determine the effectiveness of our policies on widening participation in HE. We will also support the identification, development and dissemination of good practice in admissions policies and practises across HE.

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he will take to encourage women and girls from lower family income groups to apply for subjects and universities where they are underrepresented. [117614]

  Alan Johnson
  We are working closely with the Department of Trade and Industry to take forward recommendations made in the Baroness Greenfield's report "SET Fair.- The Government's response, "A Strategy for Women in Science, Engineering and Technology", was published in April 2003. It outlined a coherent strategy to tackle under-representation of women in science, engineering and technology at all levels. Both these documents are available on the website of the Promoting SET for Women Unit of the DTI (www.set4women.gov.uk).

  The Government are also working in partnership with the "Welcome Trust" to create a national network of science learning centres. These will provide innovative training for science teachers and technicians, aiming to bring the excitement of science into the classroom, including encouraging more young women to continue studying science post 16.

  More generally, we have in place a range of initiatives to encourage greater progression to higher education by those young people who do not traditionally access higher education in large numbers. The Aimhigher programme in particular helps to raise the aspirations of young people. We also provide a range of financial support for students from low income families. For example, we pay the first £1,100 of tuition fees, depending on the income of the student's family. And, in October 2004, we are introducing a new higher education grant of up to £1,000 for those from low income families.

  Helen Southworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of careers guidance at each of the universities in assisting students to maximise employment opportunities; and what assessment he has made of equity of outcome in this respect for students from lower family income groups at each of the universities. [117615]
  134W
  Alan Johnson
  Following concerns that students in higher education may not be getting the careers advice and guidance they needed, and that quality of provision was variable, we asked Sir Martin Harris, Vice-Chancellor of the University of Manchester to carry out a review. Sir Martin's report was published in January 2001. He found that while there was much good practice, standards generally needed to be brought up to the level of the best. Sir Martin made a number of recommendations to institutions to help them develop their careers services and to make clear to students and employers what they would provide. Since then, Universities UK and the Standing Conference of Principals have published additional guidance, based on Sir Martin's recommendations, that institutions can use in modernising and providing careers services that are increasingly effective.

  The Department does not assess higher education careers services for any specific outcome. The Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) publishes annually a set of performance indicators for higher education. For the last two years it has published data on employment outcomes from each institution, with benchmarks that include social class as a factor. The data are on HEFCE's website at: www.hefce.ac.uk/Learning/perfind/2002/ and show that, nationally for 2000/01, 93 per cent. of full-time first degree students were employed or going on to further study six months after graduation, although those from lower social classes had a slightly lower employment rate than those from affluent classes.

  University Tuition Fees
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost would be of abolishing university tuition fees in 2003–04. [113971]

  Alan Johnson
  For 2003–04, the standard tuition fee contribution for full-time home and EU students of £1,125 is estimated to raise around £887 million for English institutions and around £60 million for Welsh institutions. The public and private fee elements for these figures can be broken down into:

  £ million

  2003–04 estimate

  England

  Wales

  Public contributions to fees

  456

  31

  Private contributions towards the cost of tuition

  431

  29

  Total

  887

  60

  Should private contributions to the cost of tuition be abolished, the additional cost to the Government of reimbursing higher education institutions in England and Wales for this loss of income is the private contribution set out in the table. If private contributions were abolished and no additional public funding was found, about 90,000 student places would be lost, a figure confirmed by the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Arla/National Express Merger
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations her
  135W
  Department has made to support the planned merger of Arla with National Express; and if she will make a statement. [117146]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  I assume the hon. Member is referring to the planned merger of Arla with Express Dairies.

  It is normal practice for the Competition Authorities to ask Government departments to comment on merger proposals.

  The Department has written to the Competition Authorities with its views on this merger. However, the nature of that correspondence is commercial and market sensitive and it is therefore not appropriate for me to disclose its content.

  Broadband
  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on progress in the implementation of broadband in(a) Mid Sussex and (b) West Sussex. [119659]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: South East England Development Agency (SEEDA) is committed to supporting pilot projects looking at broadband coverage across Sussex and delivers a county-wide integrated strategy. Significant activities include:
  a grant to West Sussex county council to identify and support a number of Wireless Broadband Community Projects—consortia of local businesses being formed to share the costs of a wireless broadband service in areas where ADSL broadband is not available; and 113 grants across Sussex under the Remote Area Broadband Inclusion Trial (RABBIT) to pilot the use of satellite and wireless broadband solutions as an alternative to ADSL broadband.

  Business Link Operators
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which Business Link operators have a specialist tourism adviser; and if she will make a statement. [119269]

  Nigel Griffiths
  This Government recognise the importance of the tourism sector and the need to ensure that anyone seeking advice is given the highest quality service. That is why we require Business Link Operators to meet the needs of their local area and make use of the wide range of specialist services from the private sector and the expertise of local providers. Such records are not kept centrally.

  Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements
  Mr. Tom Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when legislation will be introduced to enable the introduction of the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements; and if she will make a statement. [119861]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government remain committed to bringing forward legislation on the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA) as soon as parliamentary time allows, and to the implementation of BETTA by April 2005 at the latest.

  Intracompany Transfers
  Matthew Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many foreign nationals have entered Britain through intracompany transfers in each of the last five years; and how many of these were employed in the IT sector. [116063]

  Beverley Hughes
  I have been asked to reply.

  The numbers of people who have been issued with work permits under the arrangements for intracompany transfer, and the number of those work permit approvals that relate to the IT sector are as follows:

  Number of intracompany transferees

  Number of intracompany transferees in IT sector

  2000

  26,155

  8,895

  2001

  27,438

  10,608

  2002

  26,100

  11,006

  Figures are available from 2000 onward only and comprise in and out of country approvals.

  Nuclear Industry
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the environmental impacts of(a) storage of all AGR nuclear fuel and (b) continuation with current reprocessing contracts with BNFL for each of British Energy's advanced gas-cooled reactors. [91921]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  No separate assessment has been made of environmental impacts from the storage or reprocessing of spent AGR fuel. AGR fuel is reprocessed at the Thermal Oxide Reprocessing Plant (THORP) at Sellafield. The Environment Agency, on the basis of the National Radiological Protection Board model, estimates that the operation of THORP, when dealing with any type of spent fuel, contributes a maximum of 11 microsieverts a year to the radiation dose received by the Sellafield critical group (those people potentially most exposed to discharges from Sellafield).

  This may be compared to the annual UK dose limit for man-made radioactivity of 1000 microsieverts. The estimated critical group doses for Sellafield as a whole at the Agency's proposed new discharge limits, including THORP, are 92 microsieverts for aerial discharges and 190 microsieverts for liquid discharges. Thus, for Sellafield as a whole, the maximum dose to a member of a critical group would be less than 20 per cent. of what would be acceptable under European limits. The THORP contribution is just over 1 per cent. of that limit.

  The models used in calculating radiation doses are kept under continuous review, and those to do with inhaled and ingested radiation are currently being considered by the Committee Examining Radiation Risk of Internal Emitters (CERRIE). CERRIE is expected to report by the end of the year.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post office branches have closed permanently in Northern Ireland in each year since 1997. [119046]

  Mr. Timms
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that details of the number of net post office closures in Northern Ireland, separate from those for the United Kingdom as a whole, are only available from end March 1998 and are as follows:

  Number

  1998–99

  10

  1999–2000

  8

  2000–01

  21

  2001–02

  6

  2002–03

  12

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices have closed in the last 12 months. [120070]

  Mr. Timms
  Post office closures are an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. All closure proposals are subject to public consultation under the code of practice agreed between Post Office Ltd. and Postwatch. I understand from Post Office Ltd. that in the 12 months to end March 2003, net closures totalled 345 including 102 closures under the urban reinvention programme.

  Telecommunications
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department is sponsoring future research into telecommunications and health following the Stewart Report. [119601]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department is one of the co-funders of the LINK Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research (MTHR) Programme along with other Government Departments, agencies and industry. The first projects to be funded under the Programme were announced in January 2002. The Department has also directly funded a small number of projects, primarily concerned with measurement issues, which fell outside the scope of the programme, but are managed and monitored according to the same principles as the MTHR work. Further information is available on the programme website: www.mthr.org.uk

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Afghanistan
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate he has made of the size of the opium harvest in Afghanistan in each of the last five years. [118706]
  138W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) reported that the level of cultivation of opium poppy in Afghanistan was 64,000 hectares in 1998, 91,000 hectares in 1999, 82,000 hectares in 2000, 8,000 hectares in 2001 and 74,000 hectares in 2002.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the security situation in Afghanistan. [118707]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Security in Afghanistan remains a serious concern. We deplore the attack on the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) on 7 June that resulted in the deaths of four German soldiers. This follows other sporadic attacks against ISAF, Coalition and Transitional Administration targets, as well as UN demining teams and NGOs. The UK continues to contribute to ISAF and, as announced by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence on 8 May, the UK will be leading a Provincial Reconstruction Team in Mazar-e-Sharif from early July. In addition the UK has contributed more than £13 million for Afghan Security Sector reform in the past twelve months.

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the threat from(a) al-Qaeda and (b) the Taliban in Afghanistan; and if he will make a statement. [118920]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Although the Taliban and al-Qaeda have failed to gain widespread support in Afghanistan, attacks continue against ISAF, Coalition and Transitional Administration targets, as well as UN de-mining teams and NGOs. We continue to help the Transitional Administration counter these threats through support to ISAF and to the Coalition, and by supporting reform of Afghanistan's own security sector.

  British Consuls
  Mr. Wilshire
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the honorary British consuls, indicating(a) where they are based, (b) their nationality, (c) their date of appointment and (d) how much they are paid. [117978]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We currently have 228 honorary consuls, honorary vice-consuls, consular representatives and consular agents of various nationalities providing consular services worldwide. They are paid an honorarium of up to a maximum of £1,835.00 per annum.

  I have placed a copy of the list of honorary consuls in the Library of the House.

  British High Commissioner to India
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs who the next British High Commissioner to India will be. [119526]

  Mr. Straw
  The next High Commissioner to India will be Michael Arthur. This appointment was announced on 17 April 2003.

  Diplomatic Estate
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many new(a) embassies, (b) embassy residences, (c) high commissions and (d) high commission residences (i) have been built since 1997 and (ii) are planned to be built in the next year; in which countries; and if he will list the cost of each project. [118771]

  £000

  Post

  Project

  Cost

  Construction projects completed since 1997

  Accra

  New visa office

  3,075

  Algiers

  Staff house

  180

  Algiers

  Embassy office fit-out

  630

  Algiers

  Staff accommodation

  230

  Almaty

  Fitout extension to Embassy offices

  150

  Almaty

  Fitout visa office

  380

  Antananarivo

  Embassy office fitout

  515

  Asuncion

  Embassy office fitout

  390

  Baku

  Embassy office fitout

  1,990

  Bangalore

  Trade office fitout

  405

  Beirut

  Embassy office fitout

  1,470

  Bogota

  Embassy office fitout

  1,310

  Boston

  Consulate-General office fitout

  980

  Bratislava

  Ambassador's residence

  1,960

  Bratislava

  Embassy office fitout

  460

  Caracas

  Embassy office fitout

  1,780

  Chongqing

  Consulate-General office fitout

  240

  Dar es Salaam

  High Commission (and DfID) offices

  7,490

  Dili

  Ambassador's residence

  330

  Freetown

  2 staff houses

  265

  Guangzhou

  Consulate-General office fitout

  470

  Guangzhou

  Visa office fitout

  360

  Guatemala

  Embassy office fitout

  385

  Hong kong

  Passport office fitout

  900

  Jakarta

  Visa/Consular office fitout

  375

  Karachi

  Visa office and nine staff houses

  4,200

  Kigali

  Embassy office fitout

  290

  Kyiv

  Ambassador's residence

  1,100

  Kyiv

  Visa office fitout

  380

  Lagos

  Visa office

  4,325

  Lima

  Embassy office fitout

  1,340

  Los Angeles

  Consulate-General office fitout

  1,075

  Madrid

  New Cons office ingoings 7–9 Recoletos

  680

  Malaga

  New office ingoings

  185

  Mbabane

  High Commission offices fitout

  400

  Monterrey

  Consulate offices fitout

  345

  Moscow

  Embassy offices, 33 staff flats, clinic and amenities

  103,540

  Moscow

  Staffflats

  2,810

  New Delhi

  Six staff houses

  1,900

  Paris

  Consular and visa office fitout

  1,075

  Peking

  Embassy offices extension

  1,275

  Peking

  Consular/visa offices

  961

  Phnom Penh

  Ambassador's residence fitout

  210

  Pretoria

  Visa office extension

  530

  Pristina

  New office fitout

  695

  Pyongyang

  Embassy office fitout

  420

  Pyongyang

  Ambassador's residence and staff accommodation

  890

  Quito

  Embassy offices fitout

  840

  San Salvador

  Embassy offices fitout

  1,020

  Sao Paulo

  New offices fitout

  730

  Sarajevo

  Embassy offices fitout

  445

  Seattle

  Consulate-General offices fitout

  100

  Sofia

  Embassy offices

  2,020

  St. Georges

  High Commission offices fitout

  130

  St. Petersburg

  Consul-General's residence

  1,200

  Tallinn

  Embassy offices

  1,685

  Tbilisi

  Interim Embassy offices fitout

  615

  Tbilisi

  Ambassador's residence

  1,050

  Tegucigalpa

  New offices fitout

  160

  Tehran

  Visa office

  920

  Tripoli

  Embassy offices

  830

  140W
  Mr. Straw
  The embassy and high commission accommodation that the FCO has constructed since 1997, and that planned for the current year, with the cost of each completed project is listed below.

  The estimated cost of future projects is being withheld under exemption 7 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, because the release of this information could compromise the tendering process.
  141W

  £000

  Post

  Project

  Cost

  Valetta

  High Commission Offices fitout

  1,060

  Vilnius

  Ambasador"s residence

  1,050

  Yerevan

  Embassy offices

  3,020

  Yerevan

  Fitout new residence

  353

  Zagreb

  Embassy offices fitout

  1,110

  Zagreb

  Visa office fitout

  520

  Current construction and projects planned for 2003–04

  Abidjan

  Embassy office fitout

  Asmara

  Embassy office fitout

  Athens

  Embassy office extension

  Baghdad

  Temporary Embassy offices

  Cairo

  Visa office

  Cape Town

  Consulate-General office fitout

  Chennai

  Visa office

  Chisinau

  Fitout Embassy office and residence

  Conakry

  Embassy office fitout

  Dubai

  Six staff houses

  Dushanbe

  Embassy offices and Ambassador's residence

  Kabul

  Interim Embassy offices and staff accommodation

  Kathmandu

  Visa office

  Kingston

  New visa office

  Lagos

  Eight staff houses

  Ljubjlana

  Ambassador's residence (conversion and fitout)

  Luxembourg

  Embassy offices fitout

  Mexico City

  Consulate offices fitout

  Portimao

  Consulate offices fitout

  Tbilisi

  Embassy offices fitout

  Tunis

  Embassy offices

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what targets his Department has established for improving energy efficiency; and how he intends to achieve those targets. [120049]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. and learned Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Brecon and Radnorshire (Mr. Williams) by my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State (Mr. Rammell) on 9 June 2003,Official Report, column 640W.

  Gibraltar
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is his policy to seek joint sovereignty of Gibraltar with the Government of Spain. [119509]

  Mr. MacShane
  I refer my hon. Friend to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary to the House on 12 July 2002,Official Report, column 1165.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is his policy that the people of Gibraltar shall be entitled to vote in the 2004 European Parliamentary elections. [119510]

  Mr. MacShane
  Yes.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the term unlawful combatants in relation to detainees held in Camp X-ray, Guantanamo Bay. [118627]
  142W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The status of the detainees under international law depends on the facts of each individual case and is ultimately a matter for the US, as the detaining power.

  Whatever their status, the detainees are entitled to humane treatment and, if prosecuted, a fair trial. The US has said that the detainees are being treated humanely and consistently with the principles of the Geneva Conventions. We understand that the US has made no decisions on prosecution.

  We are pressing the US to come to a decision on the detainees' future.

  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received on when British nationals in Guantanamo Bay will be charged or released. [118472]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have been informed that the United States authorities have not yet made a decision to charge or release any of the British nationals detained at Guantanamo Bay. However, we are in regular contact with the US authorities about the situation of the detainees. We are pressing the United States authorities to move forward with the process of determining the detainees' future and shall continue to do so.

  Iraq
  Mrs. Ellman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what evidence has been discovered of mass killings and torture in Iraq under Saddam Hussein's regime; and if he will make a statement. [119006]
  143W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: As documented in the FCO's December 2002 dossier "Saddam Hussein—Crimes and Human Rights Abuses", the human rights record under Saddam Hussein was appalling. The dossier examines Iraq'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. It is based on the testimony of Iraqi exiles, evidence gathered by human rights organisations and intelligence material.

  Since the fall of the regime, information and testimonies are emerging that reveal a scale of torture and killing perpetrated by the regime which was arguably even greater than feared.

  One example is that the UK team of forensic experts currently working in Iraq estimate that there may be at least 50 mass graves in Iraq and that more than 300,000 people may have been murdered.

  Mr. George Atkinson
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) whether he is making representations to ensure that Mr. George Atkinson will be released from custody in Dubai on or before 1 September 2003; [117478]

  (2) whether he has sought assurances from the Government of Dubai that Mr. George Atkinson will be deported to the United Kingdom when he is released; [117479]

  (3) pursuant to his answer of 10 April 2003, Official Report, column 370W, whether he expects Mr. George Atkinson will be released from custody in Dubai on 1 September 2003. [117964]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UAE courts sentenced George Atkinson to six years imprisonment for financial crimes and payment of fines and compensation totalling approximately £1,560,000. George Atkinson is currently serving an additional six-month sentence for non-payment of fines. The Dubai Ruler's Court has informed George Atkinson's lawyers that he can expect to be released at the end of this period on 1 September 2003. The original judgement also indicated that Mr. Atkinson will be deported from the UAE on completion of the sentence.

  Oman
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what efforts the UK Government has made to resolve the dispute over the legality of the travel ban imposed upon Mr. Jonathan Brown, a constituent, by the Omani Government in August 2000. [116310]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our embassy in Muscat has sought clarification from the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) on several occasions as to the status of 144W
  the travel ban against Mr. Brown. The MFA maintains that the travel ban has been properly constituted. A copy of the ban order has been translated by the embassy and passed to Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown continues to argue that the travel ban is illegal, but despite several requests that he provide a legal opinion to support his position, he has not yet been able to do so.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what basis the Government, via its embassy in Oman, issued the warning that limited the right of travel of Mr. Jonathan Brown, a constituent, as a condition of returning his passport. [116311]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  This Government did not issue the warning that limited Mr. Jonathan Brown's right of travel. The warning originated from the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps the UK Government and its embassy in Oman took to ensure that the travel ban imposed on Mr. Jonathan Brown, a constituent, by the Omani Government, on 21 August 2000, was legal and properly served. [116312]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Our embassy has communicated Mr. Brown's concerns over the travel ban imposed on him to the Omani Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA). The MFA confirmed that the proper legal procedures had been followed. Our embassy has undertaken to contact the MFA again if, for example, Mr. Brown's lawyer can provide a legal opinion supporting Mr. Brown's contentions.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent steps the UK Government has taken to secure the return to the UK from Oman of Mr. Jonathan Brown, a constituent; and if he will make a statement. [116313]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Mr. Brown has been involved in a commercial dispute in Oman since mid-2000. Our embassy has been providing all the consular assistance they properly can since Mr. Brown's case came to their attention. Mr. Brown is not detained but unable to leave Oman until he meets the approximately £10,000 judgment against him.

  Most recently, on 19 May 2003, our ambassador in Muscat wrote to Mr. Brown advising him to provide the Omani Immigration Service with the routine information requested. Our ambassador also suggested that Mr. Brown consider meeting the costs of the Omani judgement against him in order to facilitate his departure from Oman. Mr. Brown replied that he has chosen not to comply with these requests.

  Our embassy will continue to do all they properly can to help, but, at the moment, action rests with Mr. Brown.

  South Atlantic Council
  Mr. Michael Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) which
  145W
  (a) Government Ministers and (b) officials from his Department will attend the South Atlantic Council meeting in Buenos Aires later this year; [118772]

  (2) what offers of assistance have been made by the British Ambassador to Argentina to the South Atlantic Council towards its forthcoming conference in Buenos Aires. [118773]

  Mr. Straw
  We are unaware of any plans for a meeting of the South Atlantic Council in Buenos Aires this year. However, a meeting of the Argentine British Conference will be held in Buenos Aires on 25–26 October, for which the British Ambassador has agreed to offer a reception at his Residence. No decisions have yet been taken on UK participation at the meeting.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs from which councils of the Commonwealth Zimbabwe is suspended. [118982]

  Mr. Straw
  Zimbabwe is suspended from all Councils of the Commonwealth. This includes the Commonwealth Science Council. The Commonwealth Secretariat and members of the Commonwealth ensured that, at the Commonwealth Science Council meetings in Johannesburg in the week of 9 June, the terms of the suspension were observed.

  Annual report costs 1998–2003

  £

  Year

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Design, typesetting, pdfs etc

  46,142

  40,212

  45,144

  56,105

  45,524

  Print (Buy back of copies from the Stationery Office1

  25,000

  18,310

  24,648

  24,774

  18,140

  Proof reading

  —

  648

  533

  570

  80

  Total

  71,142

  59,170

  70,325

  281,449

  63,744

  1DCMS was responsible for print and distribution for the 2003 annual report as this was found to be a more cost effective option than going through The Stationery Office.

  2The costs for 2002 included the development of a new design template which the Department plans to follow for the next three years.

  Departmental Budget
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Department's Exchequer Budget for sport and related projects was in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; how much underspend there was in the Exchequer Budget; and how much funding was carried over under end-year flexibility arrangements. [119575]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: For 2001–02 I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave him on 2 December 2002, Official Report, columns 541–42W. The information for 2002–03 will be published in the Department's 2002–03 Resource Accounts in the autumn.

  HMS Vengeance
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what representations she has received from groups and individuals seeking to bring the former HMS Vengeance back to the UK as a naval heritage museum; what plans she has to assist this venture; and if she will make a statement. [119682]

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many new entrants to the Civil Service were employed in her Department in each of the last five years; and how many in each year were aged 50 or over. [119812]

  Mr. Caborn
  The total number of new entrants to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport in each of the last five years and the number of those aged 50 or over is shown in the following table:

  Year

  Total

  Aged 50 or over

  1998–99

  17

  3

  1999–2000

  35

  1

  2000–01

  27

  2

  2001–02

  41

  2

  2002–03

  54

  4

  Departmental Annual Reports
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost was of publishing her Department's annual report in each of the past five years; and if she will provide a breakdown of the costs incurred. [118723]

  Mr. Caborn
  The cost of publishing the Department's annual report for each of the past five years was as follows:

  Estelle Morris
  The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), wrote to the Secretary of State in June 2002 about the 'Save the Vengeance Appeal', seeking guidance and support on behalf of campaigners for the return of the vessel to the UK. Two letters seeking support for this vessel have also been received from members of the public. The Government welcomes the efforts of those involved in the preservation of the country's maritime heritage. However, we do not provide direct financial support for the acquisition, movement or conservation of historic ships, other than through the provision of grant-in-aid to those museums, funded by the Department, which hold vessels of historic significance in their collections.

  Landmarks
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what recent assessment she has made of the conservation of literary landmarks. [118002]
  147W
  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made no assessment of the conservation of literary landmarks. However, English Heritage offers grants for the repair and conservation of historic buildings, monuments, areas and historic parks and gardens. The Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) distributes money raised by the National Lottery to support all aspects of heritage in the UK, from historic buildings and museums to archives, nature conservation and oral history. The HLF provides both capital grants (for buildings and equipment) and time-limited activity grants. Further information is available from both organisations.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much has been spent on conserving landmarks broken down by(a) type and (b) region in each of the last 10 years. [118003]

  Estelle Morris
  The information requested could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, information about the types of grant available for conservation of this historic environment is available at the English Heritage (EH) and Heritage Lottery Fund (HLF) websites. The HLF are also developing a searchable database of Heritage Lottery Fund grants on their site.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many landmarks have been identified by her Department for conservation broken down by region in each of the last 10 years. [118004]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport is not responsible for identifying landmarks for conservation. Planning Policy Guidance Note 16 issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister makes clear that detailed development plans (i.e. local and unitary development plans) should include policies for the protection, enhancement and preservation of sites of archaeological interest and of their settings.

  Official Spelling
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make it her policy that all official(a) correspondence, (b) reports and (c) documentation from her office use the English spelling of words where this differs from the US version. [118858]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS follows guidance on the Handling of Ministerial and Other Correspondence issued by the Cabinet Office which emphasises that the quality of all written material and correspondence is of a high standard and in line with guidance on Plain Written English.

  DCMS Departmental publications are also prepared in line with Guidance on the Work of the Government Information and Communication Service.

  Regulatory Bodies
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the(a) number of staff employed by and (b) budget of each regulatory body for which her Department is responsible in each year since 1997. [117776]
  148W
  Mr. Caborn
  Information about the number of staff and financial details for my Department's sponsored bodies since 1997 are contained in the Cabinet Office's annual publication "Public Bodies". Copies of "Public Bodies" for 1997 to 2002 are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Rural Proofing
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met the Chairman of the Countryside Agency to discuss rural proofing. [115577]

  Dr. Howells
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 12 June 2003,Official Report, column 1017W, by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs.

  Tourism
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much was spent by(a) domestic and (b) foreign tourists in the UK in each quarter for each of the last 10 years. [119143]

  Mr. Caborn
  The available data on quarterly expenditure by domestic and foreign tourists in the UK over the last 10 years are shown in the table.

  Quarterly expenditure by domestic and foreign tourists in the UK for each of the last 10 years1

  £ million

  Quarter

  Expenditure by foreign tourists in the UK

  Expenditure by UK tourists in the UK

  Q1 1993

  1,658

  —

  Q2 1993

  2,193

  —

  Q3 1993

  3,516

  —

  Q4 1993

  2,120

  —

  1993 total

  9,487

  —

  Q1 1994

  1,688

  —

  Q2 1994

  2,343

  —

  Q3 1994

  3,649

  —

  Q4 1994

  2,105

  —

  1994 total

  9.786

  —

  Q2 1995

  2,768

  —

  Q3 1995

  4,162

  —

  Q4 1995

  2,803

  —

  1995 total

  11,763

  20,072

  Q1 1996

  2,175

  —

  Q2 1996

  3,021

  —

  Q3 1996

  4,225

  —

  Q4 1996

  2,869

  —

  1996 total

  12,290

  22,041

  Q1 1997

  2,165

  —

  Q2 1997

  2,979

  —

  Q3 1997

  4,229

  —

  Q4 1997

  2,870

  —

  1997 total

  12,244

  24,137

  Q1 1998

  2,250

  —

  Q2 1998

  3,200

  —

  Q3 1998

  4,212

  —

  Q4 1998

  3,009

  —

  1998 total

  12,671

  22,814

  149W

  Quarterly expenditure by domestic and foreign tourists in the UK for each of the last 10 years1

  £ million

  Quarter

  Expenditure by foreign tourists in the UK

  Expenditure by UK tourists in the UK

  Q1 1999

  2,412

  —

  Q2 1999

  3,064

  —

  Q3 1999

  4,148

  —

  Q4 1999

  2,874

  —

  1999 total

  12,498

  25,635

  Q1 2000

  2,314

  4,202

  Q2 2000

  3,297

  6,993

  Q3 2000

  4,284

  8,998

  Q4 2000

  2,911

  5,940

  2000 total

  12,805

  26,133

  Q1 2001

  2,406

  4,303

  Q2 2001

  2,815

  5,801

  Q3 2001

  3,819

  9,207

  Q4 2001

  2,266

  6,782

  2001 total

  11,306

  26,094

  Q1 2002

  2,065

  5,096

  Q2 2002

  2,946

  6,892

  Q3 2002

  4,068

  8,521

  Q4 2002

  2,780

  6,192

  2002 total

  11,859

  26,699

  1Quarterly data from the UK Tourism Survey is only available back to the start of 2000 due to a significant change in the survey methodology in 1999. Annual totals from 1995–99 were subsequently reworked to allow comparison with the data for 2000 onwards.

  Sources:

  International Passenger Survey, UK Tourism Survey

  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to reverse the recent fall in monthly tourism nights taken by holiday makers in England. [119354]

  Mr. Caborn
  The most recent statistics from the UK Tourism Survey show that UK residents took more monthly tourism nights in the UK in January and February this year than they did in the same period in 2002.

  Statistics from the Office for National Statistics show that the total number of international visits to the UK, including all types of visits rather than just holidays, fell around the time of the recent war in Iraq. However figures for new arrivals in the UK in April 2003 indicate that visitor levels are recovering quickly following the end of the war.

  Visit Britain is responsible for promoting Britain overseas and England domestically. On St. George's Day a new campaign called 'Enjoy England' was launched, to promote England as a tourist destination to the domestic market. A US advertising campaign was launched in June targeting key American 'gateway' cities; this campaign is a unique partnership between the public and private sectors. Visit Britain is also currently planning a European 'British Cities' campaign to be launched in autumn 2003, marketing British cities, including some 'Capital of Culture' candidates.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Air Guns
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans his Department has to reduce the number of crimes carried out with the use of air guns. [119273]

  Caroline Flint
  The Government are determined to tackle the increasing problem of air weapon misuse. We are increasing from 14 years to 17 the age at which a person can own an air weapon and introducing further controls on their use without adult supervision. In addition, we are introducing a new offence of having an air weapon in a public place without lawful cause or reasonable excuse. These measures will mean that any unsupervised young person seen with an air weapon can be arrested before any further offence can be committed. In addition, any adult who has one in public may be asked to explain himself and, if he does not have a good reason for having the weapon, arrested.

  Asylum Seekers
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proportion of asylum seekers in detention have been assessed as having a mental disorder. [118779]

  Beverley Hughes
  This information is not held centrally.

  Drug Addicts
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent discussions Ministers have had with drug addicts being treated with(a) methadone, (b) subutex and (c) naltrexone. [119263]

  Caroline Flint
  Ministers regularly visit drug agencies, family groups and organisations including individuals being treated with methadone, subutex and naltrexone, both in their constituency and across the country.

  Ministers use these opportunities to engage directly with drug misusers to gain better understanding of their experiences.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many car offences are estimated to have been committed by drug addicts in 2002. [119265]

  Caroline Flint
  Recorded crime figures include statistics on drugs offences, such as possession, and on acquisitive crimes, such as vehicle crime, but do not record whether the latter are related to an offender's drug habits.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many shop-lifting offences are estimated to have been committed by drug addicts in 2002. [119266]

  Caroline Flint
  Recorded crime figures include statistics on drugs offences, such as possession, and on acquisitive crimes, such as shoplifting, but do not record whether the latter are related to an offender's drug habits.
  151W
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much the Government will spend on drug treatments in 2003–04; and what proportion of this will be spent on methadone maintenance programmes. [118635]

  Caroline Flint
  Direct annual expenditure on drug treatment will increase to £438 million in 2003–04 from £367 million in 2002–03.

  Spend on methadone maintenance in 2003–04 will be determined by Drug Action Teams and Primary Care Trusts on the basis of local need, in line with the National Treatment Agency's Models of Care framework which includes prescribing services.

  In 2002–03 The National Treatment Agency have estimated that the proportion of direct annual expenditure allocated to prescribing services including methadone was 26 per cent. of total treatment spend.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, what visits Home Office Ministers have made to(a) Sweden and the (b) Netherlands to look at drugs treatment in the last five years. (119329)

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: My hon. Friend the former Parliamentary Under-Secretary with responsibility for co-ordination of National Anti-Drugs Strategy (Bob Ainsworth) had informal discussions with a Dutch official last autumn to inform him about the operation of the Dutch coffee shop policy. No other Home Office Minister has been to Sweden or the Netherlands to look at drugs treatment there during the last five years. However, Home Office Ministers are very familiar with drug policies and practice in those countries through frequent contacts with ministerial colleagues there and through advice from officials and others who keep in close touch with developments.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many refusals to take drug tests in police stations there have been in the first five months of 2003. [119327]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: The latest published data, covering the period from July 2001 to 31 October 2002, from the nine police stations in the drug testing pilot programme show that of the 6,413 tests conducted less than 2.5 per cent. resulted in refusal or invalid tests. The refusal rate during this period was 0.76 per cent. Data for the first five months of 2003 is being processed but the indications are that the refusal rate remains low.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what visits have been made to Sweden by Home Office Drug Directorate and National Treatment Agency officials in the last five years. [119328]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: The Home Office Drugs Strategy Directorate and the National Treatment Agency have been in existence only since 2001. No official visits have been made by staff of either organisation to Sweden since then. However. Home Office and National Treatment Agency officials are very familiar with drug policies and practice in Sweden through frequent formal and informal contacts
  152W
  with Swedish officials and practitioners in a variety of international forums, attendance at national and international conference at which Swedish representatives have spoken and through research into the approaches of other jurisdictions carried out in the course of their everyday work.

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what treatment is being given to the drug addicts in treatment in the UK broken down by method. [119330]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: Treatment information from the Regional Drug Misuse Databases for six months ending March 2001. A breakdown is provided in the table. Data for 2002/03 are currently being collated.

  Type of agency

  Percentage of reported agency episodes

  General practice:

  5.3

  Private

  NHS funded

  Police surgeon:

  0.5

  Community based drug service:

  84.0

  Statutory

  Non-statutory

  Hospital in-patient treatment:

  1.0

  Statutory

  Private

  Non-statutory

  Hospital out-patient treatment:

  0.1

  Statutory

  Private

  Drug dependency unit (DDU) in-patient:

  3.0

  Drug dependency unit (DDU) out-patient:

  Residential rehabilitation:

  2.3

  Statutory

  Private

  Non-statutory

  Day care service:

  1.2

  Statutory

  Private

  Non-statutory

  Other:

  3.0

  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drug addicts treated in 2001 were in employment 12 months later in(a) Bassetlaw and (b) the UK. [119331]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: The National Treatment Agency do not currently collect data on the employment status of drug addicts 12 months after treatment.

  However, Progress2Work is a Department of Work and Pensions led initiative which commenced in April 2002. It aims to help people with a history of illegal drug misuse to engage in mainstream employment provision and to secure and sustain jobs.

  At the end of January 2003, of the 1,603 starts nationally on Progress2Work some 279 (17 per cent.) of clients attained a job outcome (including supported employment). A further 404 (25 per cent.) have gone

  153W
  into other outcomes such as Jobcentre Plus mainstream provision and training. It is expected that the proportion of job outcomes will rise during 2003.

  Entitlement Card Consultation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many responses to the entitlement card consultation were received via the Stand website; and how many were(a) in favour and (b) against. [116170]

  Beverley Hughes
  5,031 emails have been received via the Stand website. 4,856 expressed views against an entitlement card scheme, 44 expressed views in favour. A further 131 contained obvious false information, for example a made-up email address or were judged highly likely to be duplicates.

  EU Constitution
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations he has received on the draft U constitution. [118756]

  Caroline Flint
  I have received written representations from hon. Members both in their own capacity and on behalf of the public.

  Gun Amnesty
  Stephen Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the results of the gun amnesty. [118758]

  Caroline Flint
  Final figures from police forces will be available shortly. We will use these to publish a detailed breakdown of the items handed in. Latest police estimates indicate that over 40,000 guns were handed in during the amnesty, along with nearly a million rounds of ammunition.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Dangerous Driving
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to promote legislation to increase maximum sentences for offences where motorists kill or injure others through reckless or dangerous driving. [115995]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Northern Ireland Office published a consultation paper on road traffic penalties on 10 March of this year; the consultation period lasts three months and will end on 9 June 2003. In total, the paper makes some 25 recommendations dealing with various road traffic issues; among these are proposals to increase the maximum penalties for causing death or grievous bodily injury by dangerous driving or by careless driving while under the influence of alcohol from 10 to 14 years. A report of recommendations will be published in the autumn and legislation will follow when parliamentary time allows.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Adviser Discretion Fund
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how much has been spent by the adviser discretion fund in each month since July 2001; and what the projected cost is over the next 12 months. [110913]

  Mr. Browne
  From 7 April, the Fund has been extended to people who have been in receipt of benefit for six months or more. Payments from the Fund are awarded on a discretionary basis to help people overcome barriers that prevent them from applying for or taking up a job. An increase in the number of awards is expected because of the extended eligibility.

  The Adviser Discretion Fund is one of a number of programmes managed locally to meet individual needs of individual customers. As such no separate budget for the Fund is set and the amount spent will depend on local circumstances. Therefore, we do not have a figure for the projected cost of the Adviser Discretion Fund over the next 12 months.

  Information on awards made through the Adviser Discretion Fund since July 2001 is in the table.

  Awards made through the Adviser Discretion Fund

  Month/Year

  Number of awards

  Value of Awards (£)

  2001

  July

  4,331

  215,216

  August

  7,086

  399,327

  September

  8,821

  525,822

  October

  9,594

  565,114

  November

  12,327

  787,215

  December

  7,660

  491,621

  2002

  January

  11,524

  693,955

  February

  13,432

  783,235

  March

  19,242

  1,226,270

  April

  15,562

  1,254,727

  May

  21,014

  1,528,999

  June

  15,869

  1,094,076

  July

  16,976

  1,145,953

  August

  17,818

  1,377,355

  September

  18,433

  1,196,375

  October and November1

  28,781

  2,599,520

  December

  7,149

  664,354

  2003

  January

  19,695

  1,767,733

  February

  19,482

  1,774,501

  March

  20,538

  1,881,413

  Total

  295,334

  21,972,781

  1Information for the months of October and November 2002 is not available separately.

  Source:

  July 2001 to September 2002—clerical count of Adviser Discretion Fund cases.

  October 2002 to March 2003—taken directly from information input to the LMS computer system.

  Angel Group
  Peter Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list the properties acquired by the Angel Group and its subsidiaries from the Department and its agencies, and the(a) dates and (b) costs of their acquisition. [118834]
  155W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has not sold any properties to the Angel Group.

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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; if he has made an estimate of the cost of compliance; and if he will make a statement. [117704]

  Mr. Browne
  Plans are in place to ensure that this Department will be fully compliant with the new Regulation 4 of the Control of Asbestos at Work (CAW) regulations 2002 by the required date of 21 May 2004. A programme to carry out the required surveying and risk assessment work is due to begin this summer. The cost of compliance has not been estimated. Asbestos registers have been held for some time for individual buildings and condition inspections of known asbestos are carried out at least annually. There are regular checks are to ensure compliance with relevant legislation.

  Employment Action Teams
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) where peripatetic employment action team advisors are present across the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency; how regularly they use these locations; and if he will estimate the number of users at each location; [115531]

  (2) what internal estimates of working age employment rates in each ward of the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency informed the selection of wards for employment action team status. [115532]

  Mr. Browne
  The outreach location used by the Middlesbrough Action Team for Jobs in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency is in the Hemlington Initiative Centre, Cass House Road. Action Team Advisers attend the Centre twice a week and, on average, see 10 clients on each visit.

  In 2001, Middlesbrough and Redcar and Cleveland was chosen as an Action Teams for Jobs area because the local authority was ranked as one of the 30 with the lowest labour market participation in Great Britain.

  The selection of wards within the area to be covered by the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency was based on the proportion of the working age population not in employment. The wards targeted had a working age employment rate of 58.5 per cent. or below at the time of selection.

  The office for National Statistics does not produce employment rates down to individual wards from the Labour Force Survey. For this specific purpose a one off exercise was carried out to calculate data at ward level in Action Team areas. At ward level there is a larger margin of error and so a combination of data, including benefit recipient data, was used to rank wards in Action Team Local Authority Districts.
  156W
  The following table shows the employment rates for wards in the Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency derived from this exercise.

  Percentage

  Constituency Wards

  Employment Rates

  Park End

  44.8

  Easterside

  46.3

  Hemlington

  56.0

  Stainton and Thornton

  58.4

  Newham

  79.1

  Marton

  82.1

  Nunthorpe

  87.6

  Source:

  Jobcentre Plus

  Health and Safety Executive
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer of 7 March 2003, Official Report, column 1259W, on the Health and Safety Executive, what the total pay costs incurred by the Health and Safety Executive were in each year since 1997. [113385]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Financial Year

  £000s

  1996–97

  116,074

  1997–98

  117,762

  1998–99

  119,633

  1999–2000

  124,339

  2000–01

  130,234

  2001–02

  136,323

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many inspectors were employed by the Health and Safety Executive's Field Operations Directorate in each of the last 10 years. [117130]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the table:

  Inspectors in HSE's field operations directorate

  Staff in post figures 1993–2002

  Total

  1 April 1993

  932.5

  1 April 1994

  941.5

  1 April 1995

  1864.5

  1 April 1996

  2793.4

  1 April 1997

  3779.8

  1 April 1998

  783.3

  1 April 1999

  852.5

  1 April 2000

  4898.3

  1 April 2001

  5954.3

  1 April 2002

  954.5

  Notes:

  1 New Treasury rules for calculating figures for staff working part-time came into operation at 1.4.95;

  2 From 1.4.96 HSE divisions were restructured;

  During 1996–97 there were transfers of posts between Safety Policy Directorate, Chemical and Hazardous Installations Divisions, Field Operations Directorate, Nuclear Safety Directorate and Offshore Safety Division following the Review of Senior Management;

  4 Reorganisation of HSE 1 April 2000

  5 Field Operations Directorate and HM Railway Inspectorate brigaded May 2000
  157W
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what impact the recently announced cut in the budget of the Health and Safety Executive will have on its performance. [117132]

  Mr. Browne
  There has not been a cut in the budget of the Health and Safety Executive. The SR2002 settlement provided for an increase in the HSC/E's resource budget of £4 million in 2003–04, £4 million in 2004–05 and £2 million in 2005–06. HSE's capital budget has been increased by £60 million to cover the on-balance sheet PFI deal for the replacement of HSL's laboratories.

  The Health and Safety Commission has been determining its priorities for 2003–04 onwards. Resources are being focused on targets and objectives so that resource is allocated according to risk and where HSC/E can have most impact in reducing risk.

  Lost Working Days
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average number of working days lost per person in his Department and its agencies was in each of the last six years. [116722]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. Such information as is available is in the table.

  Period

  Average days lost per person

  1 April 2001 to 31 March 2002

  14.17

  1 April 2002 to 31 March 2003

  14.27

  Note:

  Based on the number of staff in post on 31 March

  The Department is committed to managing sick absences effectively and in reducing the number of days lost.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to inform pensioners of their eligibility for the pension credit; and what the costs of such plans are. [118629]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Pension Service has begun to write to pensioner households to explain Pension Credit and to invite advance applications. Around 1.8 million people who currently receive the Minimum Income Guarantee have been told that they will be transferred automatically to Pension Credit, ready for payments to be made from October 2003. By June 2004, all pensioner households will have been contacted. This systematic approach will be supported by regional and national advertising. The marketing campaign for Pension Credit is in its early stages and the level of expenditure may change according to need. However, it is currently estimated that media costs, including direct mailing, television and press advertising, will be in the region of £12–17 million, excluding VAT, to October 2004.

  Pensions
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether his proposed pension insurance 158W
  scheme will also cover public sector pensions; and whether public sector employees will be expected to pay insurance premiums. [119967]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Green Paper response (Cm 5835) notes, the Pensions Protection Fund will cover all employees in defined benefit pension schemes other than those in public sector schemes where benefits are guaranteed by government. The levy will be payable by relevant employers, not employees in either the public or private sectors.

  Race Relations
  Angela Eagle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions 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. [117466]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We will be publishing a revised Race Equality Scheme on Friday 11 July. This will set out the Department's progress in implementing the requirements of the Race Relations Amendment Act 2000, including the position on implementing the monitoring requirements of the Act. A copy of the Scheme will be placed in the Library.

  Work-First Interviews
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many people have had a work-first interview; and if he will make a statement; [114490]

  (2) how many people who have received a work-first interview and claimed (a) incapacity benefit and (b) disability benefit did not have a first Level 2 qualification; and if he will make a statement; [114484]

  (3) how many people who have received a work-first interview have been registered as (a) unemployed and (b) inactive; how many of those have gone onto (i) incapacity benefit and (ii) other disability benefits; and if he will make a statement. [114491]

  Mr. Browne
  The information on the number of Work Focused Interviews is available only by client types not by benefit claimed and so it is not possible to provide a breakdown between incapacity benefit and other disability benefits.

  Since the introduction of jobseekers allowance (JSA) in 1996 customers have to attend a New Jobseekers Interview before their claim to JSA is valid. From October 2001, customers making a new claim for a non-JSA benefit in Jobcentre Plus areas have had to participate in a Work Focused Interview with a Personal Adviser as a condition of claiming benefits but there is no requirement to look for work.

  From 22 October 2001 to 9 May 2003 a total of 245,914 Work Focused Interviews (JSA and non-JSA) were conducted in Jobcentre Plus offices. A breakdown by client type is only available from 19 November 2001. From that date to 9 May 2003 a total of 238,234 Work Focused Interviews were conducted, of which 175,174 were JSA customers (unemployed and required to actively seek work) and 63,060 were non-JSA (not required to be available for or actively seek work); of these, 37,748 were incapacitated or disabled.
  159W
  Information on skill levels gathered through work-focused interviews is not collected centrally and so it is not possible to provide a breakdown by benefit type.

  Workplace Health and Safety
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's expenditure on improving health and safety in the workplace is in 2003–04; and what the level of expenditure was in each year since 2000–01. [118216]

  Mr. Browne
  The information in the table reflects the expenditure of the Health and Safety Executive, which is responsible for improving health and safety in the workplace, in each year from 2000–01:

  Cost (£000)

  2000–01

  1189.400

  2001–02

  1203.500

  2002–03

  1193.713

  2003–04

  2219,000

  1The information provided for 2000–01 to 2002–03 represents the Grant in Aid (cash) drawn by the Health and Safety Executive in each year.

  2The information provided for 2003–04 is the Net Resource Budget which has been voted by Parliament.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many work-related deaths or serious injuries have occurred at workplaces in the Tooting constituency in each of the last five years; [118217]

  (2) how many prosecutions have taken place against employers in the Tooting constituency for (a) work-related deaths and (b) serious injuries to their workforce in each of the last three years. [118218]

  Mr. Browne
  Enforcement of health and safety at work law in certain premises is a matter for the Health and Safety Executive (HSE) and in other premises for the local authority.

  The number of work-related deaths and major injuries to employees, self-employed people and members of the public reported to HSE in the London borough of Wandsworth in each of the last five years for which figures are available, is in the table.

  Table 1

  Year1

  Work-related deaths

  Major injury

  1997–98

  1

  329

  1998–99

  3

  181

  1999–2000

  —

  96

  2000–01

  1

  85

  2001–02

  1

  70

  The number of work-related deaths and major injuries to employees, self-employed people and members of the public, reported to the London borough of Wandsworth in the same period is as follows:

  Table 2

  Year1

  Work-related deaths

  Major injury

  1997–98

  —

  15

  1998–99

  —

  3

  1999–2000

  —

  36

  160W

  Table 2

  Year1

  Work-related deaths

  Major injury

  2000–01

  —

  37

  2001–02

  —

  23

  Information at constituency level is not available.

  The number of prosecutions taken by HSE against employers in the London borough of Wandsworth for (a) work-related deaths and (b) major injuries to employees (including trainees) in each of the last three years for which figures are available is as follows:

  Table 3

  Separate offences prosecuted

  Year1

  Following work-related death

  Following major injury

  1999–2000

  —

  1

  2000–01

  1

  1

  2001–02

  —

  —

  The number of prosecutions for health and safety at work offences taken by Wandsworth borough council in the same period is as follows:

  Table 4

  Year1

  Separate offences prosecuted (all health and safety offences)2

  1999–2000

  8

  2000–01

  —

  2001–02

  Not yet available

  The annual basis is the planning year from 1 April to 31 March.

  Figures for offences prosecuted by local authorities specifically following death or major injury are not available except at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when his Department last introduced a nationwide campaign on the importance of health and safety procedures being followed by both employers and employees. [118551]

  Mr. Browne
  The Government (through the then Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) and the HSC launched "Revitalising Health and Safety" in 2000. The strategy stresses the need for employers to improve their health and safety performance to achieve best practice, the contribution of the workforce that understands its own responsibilities and the need for effective partnership between all stakeholders in the health and safety system.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many inspections of building development sites there have been in the Greater London area by health and safety inspectors in each of the last three years. [118556]

  Mr. Browne
  The information is in the table.

  Inspection visits of construction activities in the Greater London Area carried out by HSE Inspectors

  Year

  Number

  2000–01

  2,540

  2001–02

  1,951

  2002–03

  2,200

HEALTH

  Action On Programmes
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on(a) the areas involved in the specialties covered by (b) funding for and (c) objectives of the new Action On programmes; [114315]

  (2) if he will make a statement on (a) the areas involved in the specialties covered by (b) funding for and (c) the effectiveness of the existing Action On programmes. [114314]

  Mr. Hutton
  Details of the first four Action On programmes covering ophthalmology; orthopaedics; ear, nose and throat (ENT); and dermatology, their pilot sites and summaries of their main aims and achievements are available on the Action On website: www.modern.nhs.uk/action-on

  Three new Action On programmes began in spring 2003, covering services in general surgery, plastic surgery, and urology. 18 pilot sites in plastic surgery and 15 pilot sites in urology were announced in early May 2003, details of which are also available on the Action On website. Projects in general surgery will be announced in July 2003.

  Existing pilot sites received revenue funding of typically £75,000 per annum over 18 months. In addition to this, a total of more than £75 million capital funding has also been allocated to selected sites in dermatology, ENT and orthopaedics over 2002–03 and 2003–04 to increase capacity and support developments in service modernisation.

  Pilot sites for the three new Action On programmes will also receive revenue funding to support the costs of running the project over 18 months. Funding for pilot projects will total £3 million across the three specialties in the current financial year, with a further £1.5 million in 2004–05.

  From April 2003, all 28 strategic health authorities in England are also being provided with funding totalling £2.5 million over the next two years to employ a local service improvement lead each in order to support the spread of good practice. These posts will support local modernisation initiatives in the Action On specialties, including the three new programmes in plastic surgery, general surgery and urology.

  All capital schemes are required to deliver additional service capacity and waiting time improvements. Cataracts schemes have contributed to the 17 per cent. increase in surgery rates achieved during the first two years of the programme. Action On ENT, dermatology and orthopaedics are still in the process of completion and implementation. However, good practice guidance issued by all four programmes give examples of productivity gains and service improvements at each of the pilot sites. These guides are available on the Action On website.

  Drug Dependence
  Angela Watkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the cost of treatment for drug dependency and drug related illnesses in London in each of the past five years. [116483]
  162W
  Mr. Hutton
  The pooled drug treatment allocations for London were £32 million in 2001–2 and £43.8 million for 2002–3. This is an increase of 37 per cent. In addition to this substantial money is also spent on drug treatment from National Health Service mainstream resources the details of which are not held centrally.

  Intensive Care Beds
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many intensive care beds there are in NHS hospitals covering the Greater London area. [118925]

  Mr. Hutton
  On the 15 January 2003 (latest data available), there were 660 open and staffed critical care beds in National Health Service trusts in the Directorate of Health and Social Care London area.

  Powder Ject
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when(a) Ministers and (b) officials in his Department have met representatives of PowderJect; and who was present at each meeting. [109076]

  Mr. Hutton
  Ministers have had no meetings with PowderJect representatives to discuss the placing of the smallpox vaccine contracts.

  Officials met with representatives from PowderJect on the following dates:

  16 October 2000;

  9 January 2001;

  22 January 2002;

  11 April 2002;

  16 July 2002,

  5 August 2002;

  14 October 2002;

  5 December 2002;

  10 January 2003; and

  29 January 2003.

  The Departmental officials and PowderJect representatives present at each meeting was dependent on the subject to be discussed. As all discussions were confidential, the names of those present are not being revealed. This is in accordance with normal policy.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Asbestos
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what actions the Lord Chancellor's 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 an estimate has been made of the cost of compliance; and if she will make a statement. [118849]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department has ensured that the Managing Agents of it's properties have received guidance and instructions on the new asbestos regulations by means of two Estate Management Notices and the HSE guidance leaflet. A checklist for
  163W
  local managers is being devised. Local compliance will be checked as part of the 2003–04 Health and Safety risk assessment programme.

  The information with regard to costing is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Hotel Accommodation
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list the amount spent by(a) his Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies on hotel accommodation (i) in the UK and (ii) abroad for (A) Ministers, (B) staff and (C) others, and if he will list the average cost per hotel room, in each year since 1997. [117564]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government publishes an annual report of ministerial travel overseas. The total cost of ministerial travel provided in the annual report includes the costs of accommodation. The information sought in respect of accommodation within the UK is not held centrally. All travel is conducted in line with the requirements of the ministerial code. For travel by civil servants and others, the information requested is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Legal Aid
  Mr. Olner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department where records of default costs certificates showing solicitors charges in legally aided cases are held; whether they are available for inspection by members of the public; and how far back the records go. [118347]

  Mr. Lammy
  Case files which contain copies of default costs certificates are held at local county courts. There is no third party access to these files except through application to a judge at the court where they are held.

  The retention period of a case file is dependent on the type of case (e.g. an adoption case file is kept 75 years). However, as default costs certificates were introduced with the implementation of the Civil Procedure Rules 1998, copies of them would only be available from that date.

PRIME MINISTER

  Minister for Pensions
  Mr. John Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister when he intends to appoint a new Minister for Pensions. [118741]

  The Prime Minister
  I have appointed Malcolm Wicks MP as the new Minister of State for Pensions.

  Mr. Kenny Richey
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has made to United States authorities regarding the case of Mr. Kenny Richey. [119722]
  164W
  The Prime Minister
  The Government are taking what steps we properly can. We are in touch with Mr. Richey's lawyers both in the USA and the UK, as well as with Ohio state officials. The Acting Consul General in Chicago recently attended Mr. Richey's Court of Appeals hearing. We shall continue to monitor his case closely to determine what other representations could be made on his behalf.

  Suez Medal
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 11 June 2003,Official Report, column 869W, on the Suez Medal, whether the General Service Medal will be awarded posthumously to those who (a) were killed in action or died from wound and (b)who have died in the years since 1954. [119873]

  The Prime Minister
  Where the person concerned was killed in action or has subsequently died, his next of kin can claim his medal subject to proof of service, of kinship and as long as the other eligibility criteria are met.

  Tariq Aziz
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 10 June 2003,Official Report, column 718W, on trials of senior Iraqi figures, how he intends to help the Iraqi people decide what action to take to bring senior figures to justice, with special reference to Mr. Tariq Aziz. [119956]

  The Prime Minister
  A decision has not yet been taken regarding the process for trying senior Iraqi figures. The evaluation and consultative process outlined is still in progress.

  Tariq Aziz voluntarily surrendered to the coalition forces in Baghdad and is currently in custody. It is too early to determine the nature of any criminal charges he might face.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the availability of public sector owned land suitable for redevelopment for affordable housing(a) in London and (b) in England. [118959]

  Keith Hill
  English Partnerships have been given a new strategic role on surplus public sector land. As part of that new role, they are in the process of developing a register of surplus public sector land within government. Once the register is completed it should provide a comprehensive picture of surplus government owned land across England.

  In London specifically, English Partnerships have been working with various agencies, including the Greater London Authority, to identify land within London suitable for affordable housing.

  Burslem Townscape Heritage Scheme
  Ms Walley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister with reference to the EC decision in respect of a derogation
  165W
  under state aid rules of the English Heritage regeneration scheme, if he will make a statement in respect of the Burslem Townscape Heritage Scheme; and when he expects to clear the decision on the (a) Historic Environment Regeneration (NN985/2002), dated 14 May 2003; and (b) National Heritage Memorial Fund, dated 28 May 2003. [118763]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aware of the importance of the Burslem Townscape Heritage Scheme to the regeneration of Stoke. Officials from the Government Office for the West Midlands have been in regular contact with Stoke city council with regard to this scheme. As my hon. Friend notes, the Commission has now approved the provision of additional heritage-related costs under the National Heritage Memorial Fund Scheme and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Historic Environment Regeneration Scheme. A decision is expected shortly on the English Heritage, Historic Buildings, Monuments, Parks and Gardens Scheme.

  Officials will be happy to meet with those involved in the Burslem Townscape Heritage Scheme to discuss taking forward the project.

  Colchester Garrison
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will discuss with the Ministry of Defence the disposal of empty Service family houses at Colchester Garrison; and if he will make arrangements for them to be transferred to a registered social housing landlord. [119770]

  Keith Hill
  Colchester borough council and Colne Housing Society have been working with the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) and Annington Homes for the past four or five and three bed) were leased for three years from the DHE for use as temporary accommodation for homeless families up until October 2001. At the end of the lease, the properties were modernised and sold on the open market. In September 2002 Colne Housing Society entered into a three year lease with Annington Homes, leasing 48 empty three-bedroom homes for use as temporary accommodation for homeless families. This was made possible by the provision of Local Authority Social Housing Grant of £225,000 and a risk-sharing agreement with Colne Housing Society.

  Annington has confirmed that at the end of the three-year lease, it will demolish the 48 houses and redevelop the site with higher density housing.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not feel that it is necessary to get involved in this process. A discussion between the Ministry of Defence and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is not required in this case.

  Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Government's(a) plans and (b) timetable are for implementing the EU Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. [118815]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has overall responsibility for implementing this Directive (2001/42/EC "on the assessment of the effects 166W
  on the environment of certain plans and programmes") in the UK. It must be transposed into national law by 21 July 2004, and Regulations are being prepared to achieve this. Work is also in hand to develop capacity in the organisations that will have responsibilities for the Directive, including local authorities, regional planning bodies and Government agencies. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has carried out a public consultation exercise on draft guidance for planning authorities on how to meet the Directive's requirements, and the finished guidance will be published later this year.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to trial integrated risk management plans before they are introduced throughout England; and in which fire authorities the trials will take place. [119679]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are no plans to trial integrated risk management plans. Any proposed changes must be evidence based, properly evaluated and subject to consultation.

  Housing
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what aid and assistance is available for the(a) sale and (b) development of brownfield sites for domestic housing. [116297]

  Keith Hill
  National planning policies encourage the reuse of suitable brownfield sites. Through Planning Policy Guidance Note 3 (PPG3), the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has introduced new measures, including an urban brownfield first policy, to meet the country's housing needs in the most sustainable way. Planning policies for land recycling are backed by a package of fiscal measures worth £1 billion over five years designed to bring empty property back into use and encourage the recycling of land.

  In addition we have made English Partnerships our expert advisor on brownfield land and charged them with considering where and when public sector intervention could be required to bring brownfield sites back into sustainable use. This work will form part of a National Brownfield Strategy which English Partnerships are preparing. Regional Development Agencies are also taking an active role in developing brownfield sites and will be producing Brownfield Land Action Plans in co-operation with other local agencies.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will commission research into the impact of overcrowding on the health of those families living in one or more bedrooms below the bedroom standard. [118651]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has been carrying through a research programme to establish the evidence base of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), which will replace the housing fitness standard as the basis for intervention by local authorities to tackle unsatisfactory housing conditions. Data from various sources has been
  167W
  collected to provide the evidence to enable housing hazards, including overcrowding, to be assessed and ranked by seriousness. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is satisfied that the research we have already commissioned will provide a sound basis on which to base policy decisions.

  Planning
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the compatibility of PPG6 with the conclusions of the 1998 McKinsey report "Driving Productivity and Growth in the UK Economy" relating to the impact on UK productivity of planning considerations. [119303]

  Keith Hill
  The 1998 McKinsey report was not commissioned by the Government. It assessed the productivity of six sectors of the United Kingdom economy in comparison with the United States and France, one of which was food retailing. For food retailing it showed that the United Kingdom lagged behind the other two countries, but that the primary difference was on labour productivity. The United Kingdom food retail sector scored very highly on productivity in its use of land and capital, and, overall, United Kingdom major food retailers were judged to"set the global standard".
  Land-use planning and other regulations were considered to account for only a small part of the difference in productivity. Nevertheless, the report suggested that planning policy made it difficult for food retailers to develop large-format stores, which might enable them to better compete and displace less productive retailers. They acknowledged, however, that this took no account of differences between countries or of other public policy objectives.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will issue revised planning policy guidance for town centres and retail developments. [119304]

  Keith Hill
  The draft new PPS6 on town centres will be published for consultation later this summer.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the impact of PPG6 on employment levels. [119305]

  Keith Hill
  No such assessment has been undertaken, as it is not possible to isolate the effects of PPG6 on employment.

  What is clear, however, is that retail employment remains a significant and successful contributor to the economy. Employment in the retail industry grew by 340,000 between 1996 and 2002.

  RDA

  Incineration

  Composting

  Landfill material

  Recovery facilities

  1999

  North East Euro Region

  0

  3

  2

  North West Euro Region

  1

  0

  5

  15

  Yorkshire and Humber Euro Region

  0

  0

  6

  5

  East Midlands Euro Region

  0

  1

  1

  3

  West Midlands Euro Region

  0

  0

  2

  3

  168W
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what research his Department has undertaken with the Treasury to assess the impact of planning guidelines on(a) UK productivity, (b) employment and (c) the UK economy; [119306]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact of planning regulations on UK productivity. [119439]

  Keith Hill
  I refer my hon. Friend to the Government's memorandum to the Housing, Planning, Local Government and the Regions Select Committee on Planning, Competitiveness and Productivity. This summarises the research evidence available from my Department's research programme over the last 10 years. The Select Committee also commissioned their own review of the available evidence.

  No research has been undertaken jointly with the Treasury which looks at these specific issues.

  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department has taken on productivity issues related to planning guidelines, in response to the conclusions of the 1998 McKinsey Global Institute study of UK productivity. [119307]

  Keith Hill
  The McKinsey study of UK productivity compared productivity in the UK, France and United States for six sectors. In two, food retailing and hotels, they commented on regulation issues including planning, building and fire regulations.

  The issues related to planning accounted for a very small proportion of the differences in productivity between UK food retailers. Nevertheless, the report suggested that a more relaxed planning regime would assist the development of larger stores. This suggestion was made without regard to national differences of geography, culture or public policy aims.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has considered the report, and taken its views into account, in developing planning policy.

  Pollution
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many pollution permit controls were approved for(a) incineration, (b) composting, (c) landfill and (d) material recovery facilities in the years 1999 to 2002 in the (i) Yorkshire and Humber, (ii) South East, (iii) South West, (iv) North East, (v) North West, (vi) East of England, (vii) East Midlands, (viii) West Midlands and (ix) London regions. [115769]

  Mr. Morley
  I have been asked to reply.

  The table shows information from the Environment Agency's Regulatory Information System (REGIS), as at November 2002, for pollution permitted controls for (a) incineration, (b) composting, (c) landfill and (d) material recovery facilities in the years 1999 to 2002 for each RDA region.
  169W

  RDA

  Incineration

  Composting

  Landfill material

  Recovery facilities

  Eastern Euro Region

  4

  0

  10

  10

  Wales Euro Region

  0

  0

  5

  7

  London Euro Region

  0

  1

  1

  3

  South East Euro Region

  0

  1

  8

  4

  South West Euro Region

  1

  0

  5

  5

  Total

  6

  3

  46

  57

  2000

  North East Euro Region

  1

  1

  2

  4

  North West Euro Region

  0

  3

  5

  21

  Yorkshire and Humberside Euro Region

  0

  0

  5

  10

  East Midlands Euro Region

  0

  1

  6

  2

  West Midlands Euro Region

  1

  1

  6

  4

  Eastern Euro Region

  1

  1

  2

  3

  Wales Euro Region

  1

  0

  2

  3

  London Euro Region

  0

  0

  1

  2

  South East Euro Region

  0

  4

  9

  9

  South West Euro Region

  0

  0

  3

  2

  Total

  4

  11

  41

  60

  2001

  North East Euro Region

  1

  0

  3

  1

  Yorkshire and Humber Euro Region

  0

  0

  12

  8

  North West Euro Region

  1

  0

  2

  3

  East Midlands Euro Region

  0

  1

  9

  1

  West Midlands Euro Region

  0

  0

  5

  2

  Eastern Euro Region

  0

  1

  9

  4

  Wales Euro Region

  1

  0

  1

  5

  London Euro Region

  0

  0

  1

  1

  South East Euro Region

  2

  1

  11

  3

  South West Euro Region

  0

  2

  13

  2

  Total

  5

  5

  66

  30

  2002

  North East Euro Region

  0

  1

  0

  4

  North West Euro Region

  0

  2

  1

  7

  Yorkshire and Humber Euro Region

  2

  1

  2

  3

  East Midlands Euro Region

  0

  1

  0

  1

  West Midlands Euro Region

  0

  0

  2

  1

  Eastern Euro Region

  0

  0

  1

  8

  Wales Euro Region

  0

  1

  1

  3

  London Euro Region

  0

  0

  1

  1

  South East Euro Region

  0

  2

  1

  2

  South West Euro Region

  0

  0

  2

  4

  Total

  2

  8

  11

  34

  Property Inspection
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the inspection of property in multiple occupancy. [118986]

  Keith Hill
  Inspections of houses in multiple occupation (HMOs) are normally carried out by local authority environmental health officers under powers conferred upon the authority by Part XI of the Housing Act 1985. An authority has a right to survey or examine an HMO internally to check to see if it is being used as an HMO and to ensure that it is reasonably suitable for the number of occupants, whether any works are required, that it is not overcrowded, that the management regulations are being complied with, that conditions attached to registration are being adhered to and that any works the authority has required have been carried out to the authority's satisfaction. A person who obstructs an authorised officer (e.g. by refusing entry) is guilty of an offence and subject to a fine not exceeding £2,500. A local authority may apply to a Justice of the Peace for a warrant of entry if admission to the property 170W
  had been refused. The warrant remains in force until the inspection has been carried out and permits entry by force.

  Regeneration Funding
  Ms Karen Buck
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the regeneration and other specific grant funding, but not revenue support grant, given by his Department to local authorities(a) in each region of England and (b) in total in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04 (estimated). [113214]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Tables setting out the available information have been placed in the Library of the House.

  It should be noted that the table giving England totals is more comprehensive than the tables for individual regions. This is because regional totals for some grants are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Figures for these grants are therefore given in the England table but not the regional ones.

  Social Housing
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement about the availability of social housing in Castle Point. [119000]

  Keith Hill
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to the hon. Member for Castle Point on 13 June 2003,Official Report, column 1156W.

  Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment Directive
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what action he intends to take to ensure his proposals in Sustainable Communities comply with the EU Strategic Environmental Impact Assessment Directive. [118816]

  Keith Hill
  The Communities Plan is a programme of work drawing together numerous Delivery Programmes. As such, it does not itself have an Environmental Impact Assessment or a Strategic Environmental Assessment. As appropriate, individual elements of the Plan will be subject to Strategic Environmental Assessment or an Environmental Impact Assessment at suitable points in the delivery process.

  Sustainable Development
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether the departmental strategy for sustainable development has been published; and if he will make a statement on what steps are(a) being taken and (b) planned to take forward the strategy. [116848]

  Keith Hill
  Delivering sustainable development is at the heart of the aims of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. On 5 February this year, we published our plan for building sustainable communities, which seeks to improve the quality of life across the country in support of the UK's Sustainable Development Strategy.

  Telecommunications Masts
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the procedure for approving applications for mobile phone masts. [118993]

  Keith Hill
  Current planning guidance on telecommunications is set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 8 (revised). The installation of any telecommunications mast in designated area such as National Parks, Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, conservation areas and Sites of Special Scientific Interest, and of a mast of more than 15 metres in height elsewhere, is subject to a full planning application. The local planning authority (or the Secretary of State on appeal) in the light of development plan policies and any 172W
  other material considerations, including any relevant representations either for or against the proposal, will decide any such application.

  The Department of Trade and Industry under the Telecommunications Act 1984 license telecommunications operators. Outside the designated areas mentioned above, licensed telecommunications code system operators are authorised under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (GPDO) to install specified telecommunications apparatus without the need to make a planning application to the local authority. Certain types of development however, such as the installation of ground-based masts of up to 15 metres in height, are subject to a prior approval procedure. Prior approval procedures allow the local planning authority the opportunity to say whether it wishes to approve details of the siting and appearance of the installation. If the authority considers that the development will pose a serious threat to amenity, it is able to refuse approval.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many appeals against decisions to grant mobile phone masts have been allowed in England in each of the last five years. [118994]

  Keith Hill
  The Information requested is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. Therefore, the following information relates to appeal decisions about telecommunications development generally.

  Appeals received

  Appeals allowed

  Appeals dismissed

  Appeals withdrawn

  1998

  146

  67

  64

  15

  1999

  147

  85

  52

  10

  2000

  325

  191

  108

  26

  2001

  621

  379

  194

  44

  2002

  871

  494

  293

  65

  January to May 2003

  209

  27

  14

  8

  Note:

  All figures relate to the year in which the appeal was received, not necessarily the year it was decided.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to amend the planning system to require sharing of telecommunications masts. [119599]

  Keith Hill
  The Code of Best Practice on Mobile Network Development was published on 11 November 2002. This firmly encourages mast and site sharing where that is the optimum solution in the individual circumstances. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has no plans to amend further the planning arrangements for telecommunications development at the present time.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Abandoned Vehicles
  Shona McIsaac
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many abandoned vehicles were collected in North East Lincolnshire in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [118568]

  Mr. Morley
  267 abandoned vehicles were collected and removed by North East Lincolnshire in 2000–01. The figure for 2001–02 was 327.

  Carbon Dioxide
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what further cuts beyond 60 per cent. the Government estimates will be necessary after 2050 to stabilise atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations at 550ppm. [117828]

  Mr. Morley
  Analysis carried out both by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution and by the Department suggests that emission reductions of about 80 per cent. may be required by 2100 to allow stabilisation at 550ppm.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Government have made of the environmental impacts if carbon dioxide concentrations are stabilised at 550ppm; and what the maximum safe limit is of concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. [117829]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department has funded research to examine the potential effects of controlling greenhouse gas emissions at a level that would lead to carbon dioxide concentrations being stabilised at 550ppm, compared with taking no action to reduce emissions. There is a high degree of uncertainty, but the research estimates that controlling emissions in this way would, for example, reduce the additional number of people at risk of water stress from three to one billion by the 2080s (compared to the 1961–90 average). Similarly, the additional number at risk from flooding due to sea level rise would be reduced from 90 million to 20 million.

  The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)'s Third Assessment Report indicates that the impacts of climate change, and the ability to adapt to them, are somewhat uncertain and will vary between regions. The question of what is the maximum safe limit of carbon dioxide is therefore a complex one, and there is as yet no international consensus on the level at which greenhouse gas concentrations should be stabilised. However, in 1996 the EU recognised that, to avoid the serious risks posed by climate change, global average temperatures should not exceed 2"C above the pre-industrial level and that therefore concentration levels lower than 550ppm carbon dioxide should guide global mitigation efforts.
  174W
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide the Government estimate will result from using all global economically recoverable reserves of fossil fuels at current rates. [117831]

  Mr. Morley
  Burning all the economically recoverable reserves of fossil fuels would take the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide to about 850 ppm over the next 250 years.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of the global economically recoverable reserves of fossil fuels will need to remain unused in order to stabilise atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide at 550ppm by 2050. [117832]

  Mr. Morley
  Of the global economically recoverable reserves of fossil fuels, almost a half would have to remain unused to allow stabilisation of carbon dioxide at about 550 ppm by 2050.

  Asbestos
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list for each licensed waste disposal site in West Yorkshire with management conditions for holding bonded asbestos the distance between the site and the nearest residential property; [116197]

  (2) if she will list the sites licensed by the Environment Agency to hold bonded asbestos in (a) Leeds and (b) West Yorkshire; [116196]

  (3) what the Environment Agency's agreed tonnage of bonded waste asbestos held at licensed waste disposal sites is in (a) West Yorkshire and (b) Leeds Metropolitan District. [116210]

  Mr. Morley
  The following list provides details of sites licensed to either store or dispose of bonded asbestos within West Yorkshire, the distances between each site and the nearest residential property. The listing also distinguishes between those siteslicensed to store or dispose of bonded asbestos in the Leeds Metropolitan District area and similar sites elsewhere in West Yorkshire, and provides information on the Agency's agreed tonnage of bonded asbestos held at waste disposal sites in a) West Yorkshire and b) in the Leeds Metropolitan District. The list is broken down by local authority area to allow the comparisons requested.

  The maximum waste quantity for bonded asbestos that can be stored at any one time is listed for each waste transfer station, together with the maximum quantity that can be disposed of in any one day for each landfill.

  175W

  Leeds

  Caird Bardon Ltd, Ridge Road, Micklefield.

  Landfill Site.

  The nearest residential property is 20–25 metres from the site boundary.

  The site is permitted to accept up to 200 tonnes of asbestos per day.

  Biffa Waste Services Ltd, Pontefract Lane, Rothwell.

  Landfill Site.

  The nearest residential property is within 50 metres of the site boundary.

  The site is permitted to accept up to 250 tonnes of asbestos per day.

  John Aldersons Ltd, Richardshaw Lane, Pudsey.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is within 50 metres of the site.

  The site is permitted to store up 35 cubic yards of asbestos at any one time in a lockable skip.

  Rhodar Ltd, Beza Road, Hunslet.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is within 20 metres of the site.

  The site is permitted to store up 35 cubic yards of asbestos at any one time in a lockable skip.

  Hinchliffe Ltd, Weaver Street, Kirkstall.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is 300 metres from the site.

  The site is permitted to store up to 10 tonnes of asbestos at any one time in a lockable skip.

  Leeds City Council, Evanston Avenue, Kirkstall.

  Waste Transfer Station and Household Waste Site.

  The nearest residential property is within 75 metres from the site.

  The site is permitted to store up to 30 tonnes of asbestos at any one time in a lockable skip.

  J S Miller Ltd, 383 Meanwood Road, Leeds.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is 50 metres from the site.

  The site is permitted to store up to 35 cubic yards of asbestos at any one time in a lockable skip.

  Leeds Environmental Organisation Ltd, Carr Crofts, Armley.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is 100 metres from the site.

  The site is permitted to store up to 10 tonnes of bonded asbestos in a secure container.

  Bradford

  Gill Demolition, Progress Works, Hall Lane, Bradford.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is within 100 metres of the site.

  The maximum quantity of bonded asbestos that can be stored on site is limited to the contents of a single lockable skip.

  Bradmet Asbestos Unit, Shearbridge Depot, Bradford, BDI.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is within 100 metres of the site.

  The maximum quantity of bonded asbestos that can be stored on site is 42 cubic metres.

  Yorwaste Ltd. Skibeden Landfill, Harrogate Road, Skipton.

  Landfill Site.

  There is one residential property within 50 metres of the site.

  The site is allowed to dispose of up to 20 tonnes of bonded asbestos in any one day and up to 600 tonnes in any one year.

  176W

  Calderdale

  T H Holroyd, Phoebe Mills, Siddal, Halifax.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is 100 metres from the site.

  The maximum quantity of bonded asbestos that can be stored on site is 640 tonnes.

  P Casey Enviro Ltd, Former Atlas Works, South Lane, Blackley, Elland.

  Landfill Site.

  The nearest residential property is within 50 metres of the site boundary.

  The site is permitted to accept up to 5,000 tonnes of bonded asbestos in a year although, in reality, the site does not currently accept this waste.

  Kirklees

  Demex Limited, Thornhill Quarry, Ravensthorpe Rd, Ravensthorpe, Dewsbury.

  Landfill Site.

  The nearest residential properties are within 50–250 metres of the site boundary.

  The site is permitted to accept up to 25,000 tonnes in a year.

  SITA UK Limited. Hollins Hey, Blackley, Elland.

  Landfill Site.

  The nearest residential property is more than 500 metres from the site boundary.

  The site is permitted to accept up 100 tonnes of asbestos in a day and up to 75,000 tonnes in a year.

  Kirklees Building Services, Coombs Depot, Thornhill, Dewsbury.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is within 50 metres of the site.

  The site is permitted to hold up to 30 tonnes at any one time.

  SITA UK Limited, Hollins Hey, Blackley, Elland.

  Landfill Site.

  The nearest residential property is more than 500 metres from the site boundary.

  The site is permitted to accept up 100 tonnes of asbestos in a day and up to 75,000 tonnes in a year.

  C & J Blackburns, Westgate Mills, Watergate Road, Dewsbury.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential properties are within 50–250 metres of the site.

  The site is permitted to hold up to 200 tonnes at any one time.

  Readymix Huddersfield Limited, Off Leeds Road, Huddersfield.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential properties are within 50–250 metres of the site.

  The site is permitted to hold up to 30 cubic metres at any one time.

  Wakefield

  Biffa Waste Services, Calder Vale Road, Wakefield.

  Waste Transfer and Chemical Treatment Site.

  The nearest residential property is approximately 300 metres from the site.

  The site is permitted to accept Fibrous Asbestos in laboratory quantities (<5kg) and unspecified quantities of non-fibrous asbestos although in reality the site does not accept such wastes.

  177W

  Welbeck Landfill Site, Off Boundary Road, Normanton, Wakefield.

  Landfill Site.

  The nearest residential property is approximately 300 metres from the site boundary.

  The site is permitted to accept up 200 tonnes of resin or cement bonded white asbestos in a day.

  Grace Brothers, 9–11 Baghill Lane, Pontefract, WF8 2HA.

  Waste Transfer Station.

  The nearest residential property is 100 metres from the site.

  The site is licensed to hold up to 10 tonnes of bonded white asbestos at any one time.

  Wakefield MBC, Denbydale Road, Wakefield.

  EAWML65091.

  The nearest residential property is approximately 500 metres away

  The site is licensed to hold up to 10 tonnes of bonded white asbestos at any one time.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs under what conditions bonded asbestos may be held at licensed waste disposal sites; and if she will make a statement. [116198]

  Mr. Morley
  There is no standard condition for holding asbestos as each application is assessed on a risk basis. I am placing in the House Library a copy of the Environment Agency's Regulatory Guidance Note (RON 11) and an extract from the shell licence for Civic Amenity sites which show what action is to be taken.

  Brownfield Sites
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will investigate(a) the time taken by the Environment Agency to approve remedial strategies for the clean-up of brownfield sites and (b) the effect of delays upon the use of brownfield sites in preference to greenbelt land; and if she will make a statement. [119109]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: The Environment Agency has a formal role in relation to land determined as contaminated land and designated as a special site, under the provisions of Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. In such cases, it may agree a remediation statement which sets out work which has been, is being, or will be carried out on particular land by the person responsible. This provides an alternative to the service of a remediation notice. Part 2A is designed to support Government policy on urban regeneration, both by encouraging voluntary action to deal with contamination, and by providing a framework for taking the necessary decisions about remediation. The Agency has no formal role outside this regime in approving proposals for dealing with land affected by contamination, other than when consulted in relation to planning applications on such land. It provides advice on a non-statutory basis in other cases, as resources allow. English Partnerships is currently developing a Brownfield Strategy for the Government, which is likely to address obstacles to brownfield regeneration, including contamination and regulatory issues, and the Environment Agency is actively assisting in its preparation.

  Clinical Waste
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate the has made of the weight of(a) tampons, (b) sanitary towels, (c) panty liners, (d) light use continence pads, (e) heavy use continence pads and (f) condoms disposed of by (i) entering into the sewerage system, (ii) landfill, (iii) incineration and (iv) other means in the last year for which figures are available. [119070]

  Mr. Morley
  Data is not collected in the format requested.

  Commission on Radioactive Waste Management
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) who the(a) Chairman and (b) members are of the Commission on Radioactive Waste Management; and when it will start work; [116123]

  (2) when the Commission on Radioactive Waste Management will undertake a review of the options for the long-term management of radioactive waste to provide recommendations to Government on the best approach; what organisations and communities they will consult; and what the anticipated date is for the completion of this review; [116121]

  (3) what the terms of reference are of the Commission on Radioactive Waste Management: and if she will make a statement. [116120]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 3 June 2003]: The deadline for applications for the Chair and Members of the Committee on Radioactive Waste Management was 2 May, and appointments will be made by the Secretary of State and her colleagues in the devolved Administrations later this year. We shall make an announcement about the Committee and its work at that stage.

  It will be up to the Committee, once they have been appointed, to decide their work programme including their proposals for public and stakeholder engagement. This must be agreed by Ministers. We shall be asking CoRWM to deliver its final recommendations by around the end of 2006.

  I have arranged for a copy of the terms of reference, which we published in March, to be placed in the Library. These explain the work for which the Committee will be responsible.

  Contaminated Land
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what financial support she has given to(a) local authorities and (b) the Environment Agency to meet capital costs of site investigation and associated clean up of contaminated land in each year since 1997. [117540]
  179W
  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is as follows.

  £ million

  England

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Support given

  to LAs

  13.7

  11.2

  10.4

  11.3

  9.9

  1—

  to EA

  0.5

  1.3

  1.4

  0.9

  1.2

  1.5

  1Not yet available

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many sites of contaminated land have been(a) investigated and (b) cleaned up under the auspices of (i) local authorities and (ii) the Environment Agency in each year since 1997. [117541]

  Mr. Morley
  Informatation is provided in the following tables. Table A shows data collected in respect of regulatory activity under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (contaminated land) which came into force in England on 1 April 2000.

  Table B—Number of LA and EA projects attracting capital support1

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  LA investigations

  72

  84

  73

  76

  38

  92

  LA remediation

  106

  92

  94

  86

  87

  57

  EA investigations

  10

  16

  12

  13

  10

  20

  EA remediation

  0

  3

  3

  4

  6

  6

  1Projects may relate to the same site, or more than one site. Some projects may appear in more than one year. Figures are for successful bids

  Energy Efficiency
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made by her Department of the cost and potential savings at different initial levels of energy efficiency of property of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme; what assessment has been made by her Department of the cost effectiveness of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme in reducing fuel poverty amongst owner-occupiers and private sector tenants; what(a) assessment she has made, (b) discussions she has had or plans to have and (c) representations she has received in relation to the research conducted by the Institute of Fiscal Studies on the cost-effectiveness of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme; and what assessment (i) has been made and (ii) is planned of the effects of the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme on reducing fuel poverty (A) to date and (B) under the fuel poverty strategy. [109067]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 14 April 2003]: The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) is now marketed as The Warm Front Team, and is the Government's main programme for tackling fuel poverty in the private sector in England. The Scheme was launched in June 2000. Warm Front provides insulation and heating measures depending upon the needs of the householder and the property type.

  You ask what assessments we have made of the Warm Front and its impact on reducing fuel poverty. Warm Front has now been in existence for over two and a half years and we are currently carrying out a review to look what it has delivered, the issues faced, solutions found, examples of best practice and future priorities. This
  180W
  Table B shows the numbers of projects for which my Department has offered or provided capital support in each financial year from 1997–98.

  Table A—Part IIA regulatory activity1

  LA determinations2

  Special sites3

  Remediation statements4

  Special site inspections5

  2001–02

  33

  0

  8

  31

  2002–03

  21

  14

  15

  30

  2003–04

  4

  0

  1

  2

  1investigation and remediation of land affected by contamination also takes place as part of redevelopment and regeneration, outside Part IIA

  2sites determined as "contaminated land" under Part IIA, following detailed investigation

  3"contaminated land" for which the Environment Agency, not the LA, is the enforcing authority

  4"contaminated land" for which appropriate remediation has been formally secured by the LA or the Agency under Part IIA, without a remediation notice

  5cases where the Environment Agency has agreed to inspect on behalf of the LA, with a view to possible determination of the site as "contaminated land" and designation as a special site

  review has included discussions with key stakeholders to assess progress and to help the debate on progress to achieving our overall goal of an end to fuel poverty.

  Our Warm Front review is looking at the scope and targeting of the scheme, the measures offered— including their cost effectiveness—and practical issues surrounding delivery. The review is also looking at issues around SAP improvements to properties under the scheme. Overall, we are looking both to identify the impact on properties once measures have been installed and potential savings for householders.

  We are also funding a piece of research to look specifically at the adverse health impact that can be impacted by fuel poverty, and the effect of assistance under Warm Front. The study was launched during 2002 with investigations being run over two winters. The findings of both these pieces of work will be published once completed.

  The Department is aware of the report undertaken by the Institute of Fiscal Studies (IPS), although we have received no representations on it. The report highlights a number of interesting issues surrounding the targeting and impact of Warm Front and is a helpful contribution to the debate.

  Government's first annual report on progress since the launch of the UK Fuel Poverty Strategy was published on 4 March. This provides an update on the number of households in fuel poverty, taking account of initial findings from the English House Condition Survey 2001. It also provides an update on programmes undertaken to help alleviate fuel poverty.

  Foot and Mouth
  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what compensation or other payments were made by her Department on behalf of the Crown to(a) Chinese businesses and (b) the Chinese community in the northeast following the accusations that Chinese restaurants were responsible for foot and mouth. [119226]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 16 June 2003]: I am not aware that any such payment was made by or on behalf of this Department.

  Forests
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the Government will respond to the sixth report of the Environmental Audit Committee, Session 2001–02, Buying Time for Forests; and if she will make a statement. [119495]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government's response to the Committee's report is not yet ready but I expect it to be made before Parliament's summer recess. I regret that a response has been delayed for so long, and apologise for that to the Committee and will write briefly to give an explanation.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the Government policy on(a) licensing the commercial production of GM crops, (b) the importation of GM foods and farm crops and (c) the patenting of genetic resources for food and farming. [116298]

  Mr. Morley
  The licensing of the commercial cultivation of GM crops in, and import of GM crops into, the EU is subject to EU Directive 2001/18/EC, which establishes the framework by which collective EU decisions are made on whether or not to authorise individual GMOs for use on the single market. The import of GM foods and GM food ingredients is subject to EU Regulation 258/97. The UK and all other EU member states are fully signed up to this EU legislation, and our policy is to act in accordance with its requirements.

  Our policy with respect to the applications to market GMOs currently under consideration is set out in the statement issued by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on 24 March 2003. A copy is in the Library and on the Defra website.

  Patenting of genetic resources is the responsibility of the Patent Office but I understand that patents are available in Europe for inventions relating to genetic resources, according to the provisions of EC Directive 98/44 which has been enacted into UK law. Such inventions have to meet the usual patentability requirements including novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. Plant varieties are specifically
  182W
  excluded by the Directive and are not afforded patents under UK patent legislation. In addition, pre-existing agricultural resources such as indigenous seeds cannot be the subject of patent rights.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what efforts have been made to publicise the national debate on genetically modified organisms and GM foods; and on what television and radio programmes Ministers in her Department have appeared since 1 May 2003 to provide advanced information on the national GM debate. [117632]

  Mr. Morley
  GM Nation?—the public debate on GM issues—is being run by an independent Steering Board. The announcement of the debate and appointment of the Board were well publicised in the media last July. All meetings of the Steering Board are held in public and the minutes of the meetings and other key documents are available on the debate website, which has kept the debate in the public eye throughout the year. The Steering Board is responsible for publicising the debate at arm's length from Government.

  The Steering Board announced their detailed plans for the debate through a press release issued on 13 May 2003. This was pro-actively sent to over 150 national, regional and specialist correspondents and received wide coverage. Professor Malcolm Grant, chair of the Steering Board, sent a letter to all local authorities and hundreds of other organisations at the same time, inviting them to get involved and host their own regional or local meetings. Professor Grant launched the debate on 3 June 2003 at a well-attended press conference, which attracted extensive media coverage. In addition, members of the Steering Board have given interviews to national and local media to help publicise the GM debate.

  Since 1 May 2003, Ministers have given interviews on aspects of the GM public debate to BBC Radio 4 Farming Today, the Today Programme, Radio 5 Live, BBC Breakfast Television News, BBC News 24 and Channel 4 News.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the(a) location and (b) date of comment of genetically modified crop trials in Shrewsbury and Atcham since 1997. [114768]

  Mr. Morley
  Information is not held on a constituency basis, so the following tables list trials of GM crops carried out in Shropshire since 1997 under consents issued in accordance with Directive 90/220/ EEC. Table 1 lists those under part B consents, and Table 2 national list trials under part C consent. Further information on the consents and the programmes of work they covered can be found on the UK public register of GMO releases and at the website http://defraweb/environment/gm/index.htm.

  Note:

  I have taken "date of comment" as mentioned in the question to mean "date of consent".
  183W

  GM crop trials in Shropshire since 1997

  Table 1 Part B releases

  Consent reference mumber

  GM crop

  Date of consent

  Location (nearest village)

  Grid reference

  Year of trial

  96/R21/4

  Sugar beet

  February 1997

  Eyton

  SJ 653 146

  1998

  Eyton

  SJ 652 144

  1999

  96/R22/8

  Fodder beet

  March 1997

  Telford

  SJ 653 1461

  1998

  Lilleshall

  SJ7171671

  1997

  Eyton

  SJ 650 144

  1999

  97/R19/13

  Sugar beet

  March 1997

  Eyton

  SJ 653 1461

  -1998

  Eyton

  SJ 652 144

  1999

  Eyton

  SJ6513

  2000

  99/R22/16

  Sugar beet

  March 2000

  Beckbury

  SJ770 0182

  2000

  99/R22/17

  Fodder beet

  March 2000

  Ash Parva

  SJ 572 3842

  2000

  Ellerdine

  SJ603 2152

  2001

  99/R21/6

  Sugar beet

  May 2000

  Eyton

  SJ 652 1371

  2000

  00/R13/10

  Sugar beet

  April 2000

  Eyton

  SJ 652 137

  2000

  00/R33/7

  Winter rape

  August 2000

  Hinstock

  SJ 685 2592

  2001

  00/R33/9

  Spring rape

  February 2001

  Ash Magna

  SJ 573 3842

  2001

  Bagley

  SJ410 2662

  2001

  Ellerdine

  SJ6032132

  2001

  Hinstock

  SJ 683 2552

  2002

  Bagley

  SJ 399 2622

  2002

  Horton/Newtown

  SJ 505 3132

  2002

  01/R33/11

  Winter rape

  July 2001

  Bagley

  SJ 398 2752

  2001

  Bagley

  SJ 398 2682

  2002

  1National List Trial Site

  2These sites were part of the Farm Scale Evahuation Programme.

  GM crop trials in Shropshire since 1997

  Table 2 national list trials of GM maize—T25

  Consent reference number

  Date of consent

  Location (Parish)

  C/F/95/12/07

  August 1998

  Eyton

  Ercall Magna

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what timetable has been set for(a) the economic review of GM crops, (b) the GM public debate and (c) the GM science debate to (i) begin, (ii) end and (iii) be reported on. [114047]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 20 May 2003]: The study into the overall costs and benefits associated with GM crops conducted by the Prime Minister's Strategy Unit and the GM Science Review were announced on 31 May 2002, and work started immediately. They will submit their reports to Government at the end of June 2003.

  The GM public debate was announced on 26 July 2002 and the first meeting of the independent Steering Board, which is managing the debate, was on 13 September 2002. Initial desk research and foundation discussion workshops were conducted in the autumn. The main phase of deliberative debate, 'GM Nation', was launched on 3 June and will continue through to mid-July 2003. The Steering Board will submit their report to Government in September 2003.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will explain the mechanisms whereby local communities can discuss the Government's approach to genetically modified organisms; and what timetable they should adhere to if they wish to make a final contribution to the consultations. [117552]

  Mr. Morley
  The Public Debate Steering Board, which is managing 'GM Nation? The Public Debate' at arm's length from Government, is encouraging local 184W
  communities to participate in the debate. Organisations and individuals can be provided with copies of a debate toolkit in order to facilitate their own debates locally. The toolkit comprises a video, CD-ROM, booklet and feedback questionnaire, and is available from COI Communications, who have been appointed by the Steering Board to run the debate. COI can be contacted on 020 7261 8616 or through the public debate website at: www.gmnation.org.uk The completed feedback forms and any other output from their discussions should be returned by 18 July 2003 in order for the comments to contribute to the final report from the Steering Board.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has had regarding the licensing of GM crops from(a) other EU member states, (b) the United States of America and (c) other nations. [114026]

  Mr. Morley
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly discusses issues raised by GM crops, including licensing, with her counterparts from other EU member states, the United States and other nations. However, details of these exchanges are not recorded centrally.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what weight will be given to(a) the GM public debate, (b) the economic review and (c) the scientific review in making decisions on the future licensing of GM crops. [114028]

  Mr. Morley
  Decisions on the future licensing of GM crops are taken collectively by member states at EU level, based on an objective assessment of the application's compliance with Directive 2001/18/EC. The reports from the GM public debate, the economic study into the overall costs and benefits associated with
  185W
  GM crops and the GM Science Review will help to inform Government's policy-making on GM, including their policy on the cultivation of GM crops.

  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what property of the genetic modification of seed enables genetically-modified crops to give a higher yield than conventional crops; and if she will make a statement. [115908]

  Mr. Morley
  The yield of crops is dependent on a number of factors, but it is especially sensitive to the environment in which the crop is grown. In particular, the presence of pests and diseases (for example, weeds, damaging insects or fungal disease), or unfavourable conditions such as drought, limit the yield of most crops.

  The current generation of genetically modified (GM) crops are largely intended to increase yield by reducing the impact of pests. Herbicide-tolerant crops allow more effective weed control, whereas insect-resistant crops help reduce the impact of damaging insects. The extent to which these approaches improve yield depends on how important the pest concerned is in adversely affecting yield. For example, in Europe and North America damaging insects are generally controlled through the use of chemical insecticides, so insect-resistant crops do not show a large yield increase. There is, however, the potential for the reduction in chemical insecticide use, which may reduce costs and bring environmental and health benefits. In contrast, recent work has shown that insect-resistant crops may have a much greater impact on yield in developing world agricultural systems where there is lower use of chemical insecticide and there are significant losses to insect pests.

  In the future it may be possible to increase the efficiency with which plants capture energy from sunlight, either through GM or by conventional plant breeding. This would be expected to improve yield independently of control of pests or other environmental impacts.

  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what liability provisions are in place to protect those who might suffer harm as a consequence of future GM releases. [118574]

  Mr. Morley
  Under European and UK law, all releases of genetically modified organisms require prior authorisation. This is only given once the relevant authorities are satisfied that the application complies with the terms of the legislation and that all appropriate measures are being taken to avoid adverse effects on human health and the nvironment. There are specific provisions in Part VI of the Environmental Protection Act giving powers to the courts and the Secretary of State to emedy harm where the commission of an offence has caused harm. Otherwise currently there are no specific liability provisions in relation to GM releases. Depending on the circumstances, a claim for redress, however, could be made through the courts under existing general legal principles.

  The independent Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission is preparing a report to Government on GM crop liability. Among other things, this is likely to include an examination of how existing general legal principles might operate here. We will consider this issue further in the light of that report.
  186W
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the decisions relating to(a) the commercialisation of GM crops and (b) the future licensing of GM releases will be fully devolved to the competent authorities in (i) Wales, (ii) Scotland and (iii) Northern Ireland. 1118576]

  Mr. Morley
  Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland have fully devolved competent authority responsibilities under EU Directive 2001/18/EC, which controls the deliberate release and marketing of GMOs in the EU, including the commercialisation of GM crops.

  Under this legislation, the Devolved Administrations have full competence to take decisions on proposed releases of GMOs for non-commercial purposes in their respective territories in accordance with Part B of Directive 2001/18.

  In the case of commercial releases of GM products under Part C of Directive 2001/18, which provides access to the whole EU single market, the Devolved Administrations have similar competence under national legislation to that of my Department. This includes powers to issue such consents in accordance with the requirements of the Directive. Decisions on Part C consents are, however, arrived at in consultation with other member states and the European Commission and are, if necessary, subject to qualified majority voting. The UK position on any particular application is agreed between my Department and the Devolved Administrations, with my Department representing the agreed UK position in EU discussions and procedures.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what overall budget has been set for the public consultation and debate on GMOs; and how much has been budgeted for(a) the debate website, (b) advertising the public meetings and (c) other costs related to holding the public meetings. [119259]

  Mr. Morley
  Government are providing £500,000 to fund the public debate on GM issues. This includes contributions from the Devolved Administrations.

  (a) A total of £42,435 has been budgeted for the public debate website (www.gmnation.org.uk)

  (b) The Public Debate Steering Board decided to allocate their resources to the content of the debate and the associated regional events rather than on publicity. The dates and times of the public meetings were publicised on the website, in the press releases of 13 May and 3 June 2003 and at the launch of the debate on 3 June 2003, and the debate has received extensive media coverage.

  (c) Approximately £100,000 was budgeted to hold the six public regional launch events, and to provide facilitation for the other large scale meetings organised more locally.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how she intends to incorporate the views of the United Kingdom public gathered during the GM public debate and contained in the final GM debate report to inform the Government's opinion on the 19 Part C marketing consent applications received by various member states of the EU. [105660]
  187W
  Mr. Morley
  The public debate, which is being managed by an independent Steering Board, will help to inform the Government's policy-making on GM, including its policy on the cultivation of GM crops. Final decisions on any of the current 19 applications notified under EC Directive 2001/18 are unlikely to be taken at EU level until the end of the year. by which time we will have the report of the public debate. The Directive also requires that the public be given an opportunity to comment on each application.

  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in what ways the GM Public Meeting in Birmingham was advertised; and if she will make a statement. [117905]

  Mr. Morley
  GM Nation?—the public debate on GM issues—is being run by an independent Steering Board at arm's length from Government. The Steering Board is responsible for publicising the debate.

  The Steering Board announced their detailed plans for the debate through a news release issued on 13 May 2003, which included the date of the first meeting on 3 June 2003 in Birmingham and details of how to obtain further information and register interest in attending. This was sent to over 150 national, regional and specialist correspondents. Letters were also sent to all local authorities and hundreds of other organisations, detailing the events and inviting them to get involved and host their own regional or local meetings. Members of the Steering Board gave interviews to national and local media to help publicise the GM debate programme and details about all the regional meetings, including the one in Birmingham, were widely reported.

  Information about the meetings was advertised on the GM debate website, which is linked to many other Government and interest group websites. Other organisations also issued press releases or website items advertising the events, including the one in Birmingham. For example, Friends of the Earth issued a press release on 19 May 2003, which included details about the event in Birmingham.

  Ingram Works, Leeds
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many breach of condition notices the Environment Agency has served on the waste disposal and landfill site operated by Harry Sanders Ltd at Ingram Works in Leeds in each year since the Environment Agency was established. [116204]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has served no such notices on the site operated by Harry Sanders Ltd.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the distance is between the waste disposal and landfill site operated by Harry Sanders Ltd. at Ingram Works in Leeds and the closest domestic property. [116326]

  Mr. Morley
  The boundary of the waste transfer station referred to in this question is 60 metres from the nearest residential property (the actual waste transfer station building is 110 metres from the nearest residential property).
  188W
  It is unclear from the question whether the landfill referred to is that covered by Waste Management Licence 113, as issued to Mr. P. H. Sanders, or the adjacent registered Paragraph 19 exemption site. In the former case, the distance to the nearest residential property is 60 metres. In the latter case, the distance to the nearest residential property is 25 metres.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the operator pollution risk appraisal score of the waste disposal and landfill site operated by Harry Sanders Ltd at Ingram Works in Leeds was in each year since 1990; and if she will make a statement. [116330]

  Mr. Morley
  OPRA scoring has been introduced relatively recently and so data is only available from 1999 until the present day.

  The OPRA score for any one year is an aggregate of the site score (calculated with respect to the relative sensitivity of the site location and the nature of the waste handling activity being conducted at the site) plus the number of scores allocated to the operator throughout the year for recorded non-compliance with licence conditions.

  The waste transfer station has a site score of 37. One addition five in 2002. To date, one additional point has been scored for non-compliance in 2003.

  The landfill referred to (Waste Management Licence 113, as issued to Mr. P. H. Sanders) has a site score of 18. Nine additional points were added for non-compliance in 1999, one in 2000, one in 2001, and none in 2002. To date, no scores have been allocated for non-compliance in 2003.

  Ink and Toner Cartridges
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what benefits she has identified for(a) the environment and (b) employment and business arising from the recycling of ink and toner cartridges; [117190]

  (2) what representations she has received regarding the future recycling of ink and toner cartridges; and what steps she is taking to ensure continuation of this practice. [117192]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK imports 10 million toner and 30 million inkjet cartridges each year, which produce about 20,000 tonnes of waste at the end of their life. The industry estimate that, at present, some 30 per cent. to 40 per cent. equivalent to 6–8,000 tonnes, of these are collected and reused or recycled. Businesses and individuals purchasing refurbished toner cartridges, rather than paying original product prices, save a total of more than £200 million per year.

  According to the industry, in the UK there are over 100 companies that remanufacture ink and toner cartridges for reuse, employing over 2,000 people. These are supported by over 20 component manufacturers and suppliers. Altogether, the industry has a turnover of over £150 million per annum.

  I understand that the industry is concerned that original equipment manufacturers are using anti-recycling devices in order to make the refurbishment of

  189W
  printer cartridges more difficult. The whole issue of eco-design will be addressed in the context of two upcoming initiatives from the European Commission, the forthcoming proposal for a framework directive on the Eco-design of Energy-Using Products (EuP) and a Communication on Integrated Product Policy (IPP).

  Landfill
  Mr. Robert Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list waste sites, with their addresses, which have submitted hazardous waste landfill conditioning plans to the Environment Agency. [111796]

  Mr. Morley
  A list of all those landfill operators who have submitted a conditioning plan to the Environment Agency for hazardous waste sites, broken down by region and including addresses of the sites, has been published on the Agency website at: www.environment-agency.gov.uk

  Ms Walley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will list the landfill sites that have expressed an interest in receiving(a) hazardous and (b) non-hazardous waste in the last two years; and if she will make a statement; [119696]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the number of landfill sites receiving hazardous waste that will be in operation when the Landfill Directive comes into operation; [119697]

  (3) if she will list landfill sites in England. [119698]

  Mr. Morley
  The Landfill Directive was agreed by the Council of Ministers in April 1999 and came into force in July 2001. The main requirements of the Directive were implemented in England and Wales by the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002.

  The number of landfills, taken from the Environment Agency's July 2002 conditioning plan exercise—covering England and Wales, is as follows:

  Region

  Non-hazardous

  Inert

  Hazardous (post 2002)

  Hazardous (post 2004)

  Anglian

  43

  60

  47

  9

  Midlands

  50

  74

  42

  4

  North East

  89

  58

  39

  11

  North West

  49

  37

  27

  8

  South West

  39

  46

  16

  1

  Southern

  30

  35

  13

  1

  Thames

  31

  49

  19

  0

  Wales

  23

  30

  15

  3

  Total

  311

  329

  218

  37

  Details on these landfill sites are available on the Environment Agency website (www.Environment-Agency.gov.uk).

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether money received by environmental organisations from the Rump Fund, designed to ease the transition between the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme and any successor scheme, will be classified as public or private finance when used to bid for further funding from other sources. [105757]
  190W
  Mr. Morley
  As indicated in the Economic Secretary to the Treasury's written statement to Parliament on 3 February 2003, the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme (LTCS) Legacy Fund is a public expenditure scheme funded by Defra. Its aim is to replace LTCS funding for eligible projects for 2003–04 which had been agreed prior to the announcement in November 2002 that the LTCS would be reformed. It should have no affect, therefore, on funding packages put together for those projects.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 2 April 2003,Official Report, column 765–66W, (1) by whom administrative support is being provided for this panel; and how much has been budgeted for this support; [113232]

  (2) what the different elements in society represented by the panel are; [113233]

  (3) whether members of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme Sustainable Waste Management Legacy Fund Independent Assessment Panel are paid from her Department's budget; how much has been provided for this expense; and whether the £350 honorarium is on a per diem basis per panel member. [113231]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 May 2003]: Administrative support for the independent panel assessing applications under the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme Sustainable Waste Management Legacy Fund is being provided by ENTRUST. The cost of this service is included in the fee that ENTRUST receives to administer the fund which comprises 2 per cent. of whatever funds are distributed.

  The three panel members are representative of women, ethnic minorities, charted institutes, academia, industry and the self employed.

  The one off honorarium paid to each panel member will be a minute fraction of the total budget (£54 million) set aside by Defra to meet the cost of the scheme. The honorarium that each panel member is to receive has been increased to £1,000 to take account of the additional time taken by panel members to ensure that the decisions taken on the eligibility of applications are fair and reasonable.

  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy to find a mechanism for distributing funds formerly flowing through the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme categories C and CC that will classify them as private rather than public sector in order to allow leverage of further funding from other sources. [106460]

  Mr. Morley
  The new public expenditure programme on sustainable waste management, which is being funded from the cessation of categories C and CC of the Landfill Tax Credit Scheme, will be used in England to support action to help households reduce the amount of waste they produce, increase access to doorstep collection of materials for recycling, promote the development of new and viable waste management technologies and provide local authorities with the support they need to deliver best practice.
  191W
  Details of the delivery programme including the type of financial assistance being provided for these activities will be announced next month. While we expect some parts of the programme to draw in funding from other sources, this will not be appropriate for all activities.

  The aim of the new programme is, however, to provide highly targeted and thus effective funding to improve performance on sustainable waste management.

  Organic Farming
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many grants have been given to support organic farming in the UK in each of the last three years, broken down by(a) county and (b) the purpose for which the grant was given. [116931]

  Mr. Morley
  The table sets out by county in the years concerned the number of agreements with farmers in England in respect of aid under the Organic Farming Scheme to support conversion to organic farming. Aid paid elsewhere in the UK to support organic farming is the responsibility of the devolved Administrations and the Northern Ireland Department.

  On 5 June 2003, I launched a modified Organic Farming Scheme which offers support to existing organic farmers, in order to encourage the continued management of organic land in an environmentally beneficial way, as well as supporting conversion to organic farming.

  County

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Avon

  29

  45

  49

  123

  Bedfordshire

  3

  7

  8

  18

  Berkshire

  8

  13

  15

  36

  Buckinghamshire

  13

  21

  26

  60

  Cambridgeshire

  12

  23

  26

  61

  Cheshire

  31

  61

  69

  161

  Cleveland

  2

  2

  4

  Cornwall

  76

  118

  128

  322

  Cumbria

  27

  45

  52

  124

  Derbyshire

  27

  45

  47

  119

  Devonshire

  221

  329

  364

  914

  Dorset

  67

  113

  124

  304

  Durham

  5

  9

  9

  23

  East Sussex

  34

  64

  71

  169

  Essex

  14

  24

  28

  66

  Gloucestershire

  56

  102

  115

  273

  Greater London

  1

  1

  2

  Greater Manchester

  1

  2

  3

  6

  Hampshire

  18

  37

  46

  101

  Hereford and Worcestershire

  79

  121

  138

  338

  Hertfordshire

  7

  8

  10

  25

  Humberside

  10

  18

  22

  50

  Isle of Wight

  2

  3

  3

  8

  Kent

  33

  59

  63

  155

  Lancashire

  22

  27

  30

  79

  Leicestershire

  20

  33

  35

  88

  Lincolnshire

  41

  66

  75

  182

  Merseyside

  5

  7

  8

  20

  Norfolk

  29

  50

  60

  139

  North Yorkshire

  47

  81

  86

  214

  Northamptonshire

  10

  14

  16

  40

  Northumberland

  20

  33

  45

  98

  Nottinghamshire

  10

  15

  16

  41

  Oxfordshire

  25

  35

  43

  103

  Shropshire

  39

  67

  79

  185

  Somerset

  61

  105

  120

  286

  South Yorkshire

  6

  6

  8

  20

  192W

  County

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total

  Staffordshire

  27

  49

  54

  130

  Suffolk

  25

  40

  45

  110

  Surrey

  6

  11

  14

  31

  Tyne and Wear

  1

  1

  Warwickshire

  15

  22

  25

  62

  West Midlands

  3

  3

  3

  9

  West Sussex

  16

  35

  40

  91

  West Yorkshire

  14

  18

  19

  51

  Wiltshire

  70

  126

  143

  339

  Grand Total

  1.284

  2,113

  2,384

  5,781

  OSPAR Commission
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she will take to ensure that the UK Strategy for Radioactive Discharges meets the commitments signed up to at the OSPAR Commission in July 1998. [116118]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government are satisfied that the OSPAR Commission is on target to achieve the reductions in radioactive discharges agreed in 1998. The UK Strategy describes the UK's contribution to achieving that target.

  Ozone Depletion
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether it is her policy under the terms of the Montreal Protocol on Substances that Deplete the Ozone Layer, that developed countries' production allowance for chlorofluorocarbons for export to meet the basic domestic needs of developing countries should be further reduced below the percentages allowed in the Beijing Adjustment to the Protocol; and whether the UK will raise this issue as one to be advanced by the EC in this year's meeting of the parties to the Protocol. [117362]

  Mr. Morley
  Further to the answer given on 1 April 2003,Official Report, column 646W, I can report to the hon. Member that there have been further discussions on this issue between member states and the Commission. The UK is not persuaded that there is at present sufficient justification to propose amending the current reduction schedule under the Montreal Protocol. However we are keeping this situation under review in consultation with stakeholders.

  Packaging
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many prosecutions of companies there have been for failing to register under the terms of the packaging recovery note provisions for each month since January 1999. [117537]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures for prosecution of companies since January 1999 are as follows:

  Prosecutions

  1999

  January

  0

  February

  0

  March

  0

  April

  0

  May

  1

  193W

  Prosecutions

  June

  1

  July

  0

  August

  0

  September

  1

  October

  2

  November

  1

  December

  0

  Total

  6

  2000

  January

  0

  February

  4

  March

  1

  April

  2

  May

  3

  June

  2

  July

  5

  August

  3

  September

  3

  October

  2

  November

  4

  December

  2

  Total

  31

  2007

  January

  3

  February

  1

  March

  3

  April

  2

  May

  3

  June

  4

  July

  5

  August

  3

  September

  8

  October

  5

  November

  5

  December

  7

  Total

  49

  2002

  January

  1

  February

  4

  March

  5

  April

  5

  May

  6

  June

  4

  July

  8

  August

  3

  September

  6

  October

  8

  November

  5

  December

  2

  Total

  57

  2003

  January

  0

  February

  3

  March

  0

  April

  0

  May

  0

  June

  0

  July

  —

  August

  —

  September

  —

  October

  —

  November

  —

  December

  —

  Total

  3

  All prosecutions have been undertaken by the Environment Agency of England and Wales with the exception of one in February 2003 that was carried out
  194W
  by Scottish Environmental Protection Agency (SEPA). The Environmental Heritage Service (EHS) of Northern Ireland have no recorded prosecutions.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many companies have registered under the terms of the packaging recovery note provisions in each month since January 1999. [117538]

  Mr. Morley
  Figures for companies who have registered under the terms of the packaging recovery provisions are not available by month. Under the packaging Regulations, the deadline for registration is 7 April each year.

  However, numbers of companies registered each year since January 1999 are as follows:

  1999–4,250

  2000–5,771

  2001–6,060

  2002–6,268

  2003–6,222 (provisional figure)

  Pitsea Tip
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what reports the Environment Agency used as the basis for their legal notice to the operators of Pitsea Tip under section 42 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990; and if she will publish those reports. [118730]

  Mr. Morley
  Site inspection reports are produced at each routine site inspection. These identify compliance with conditions of the Waste Management Licence. They also highlight breaches of conditions with instructions/guidance on rectifying the relevant matters. Where these are not rectified within suitable timescales, or are more serious/complex breaches, a Notice can be served under section 42 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 requiring compliance with conditions.

  The site inspection reports are on the public register, which the Environment Agency holds.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what monitoring procedures have been undertaken by the Environment Agency in respect of Pitsea Tip; and what results have been achieved. [118731]

  Mr. Morley
  The site has a Waste Management Licence (WML). The WML has conditions requiring the operator, Cleanaway Ltd., to conduct monitoring of groundwater, surface water, leachate and landfill gas. This is done at prescribed frequencies in prescribed locations in and around the site.

  The Environment Agency receives the analytical data and assesses it. The agency also conducts its own audit monitoring of the site to verify the data supplied by the operator. This data is on the public register which the Environment Agency holds.

  Ambient air quality is not required by the licence and is not routinely carried out by the agency. Spot samples of odorous air were recently taken from the landfill site and analysed; health experts have confirmed that the results indicate the presence of constituents at levels

  195W
  which would not cause harm to human health. Further comprehensive air monitoring is presently being conducted by an independent consultant and a report is expected to be produced in the next week.

  Private Finance Initiative (Waste Projects)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the allocation of PFI credits for waste projects which has occurred, indicating in each case how much is intended for incineration related purposes. [114266]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table sets out the amount of PFI credits that have been allocated to local authority waste projects. The list includes cases that have been approved on the basis of final business cases—where preferred bidders have been selected and contracts have

  Authority

  Financial year project signed

  Approval stage

  PFI credit allocation (£ million)

  Total municipal waste dealt with (Tonnes per annuum)

  Incineration capacity included in project (Tonnes per annum)

  Isle of Wight1

  1997–98

  FBC

  13

  37,000

  0

  Herefordshire and Worcestershire2

  1998–99

  FBC

  57

  347,000

  94,000

  Kirklees3

  1998–99

  FBC

  33.9

  233,500

  123,000

  Surrey4

  1999–2000

  FBC

  85.5

  555,000

  400,000

  South Gloucestershire5

  2000–01

  FBC

  34.3

  185,000

  55,000

  ELWA6

  2002–03

  FBC

  47

  530,000

  0

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove6

  2002–03

  FBC

  49

  445,000

  225,000

  Leicester City6

  2003–04

  FBC

  30.8

  140,000

  0

  Central Berkshire7

  n/a

  OBC

  37

  464,000

  0

  West Sussex8

  n/a

  OBC

  25

  414,000

  0

  Gloucestershire7

  n/a

  OBC

  25.105

  223,475

  0

  1 Latest (2002) data

  2 Final stage projections

  3 Latest 2002–03 estimates

  4 Incineration figures based on capacity—not necessarily all for municipal waste

  5 Final stage projections based on contract end estimates

  6 Final stage data

  7 Outline stage data

  8 Outline stage data. Civic Amenity Site solution

  Radioactive Waste
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list landfill sites which are(a) unlined and (b) permitted to receive low-level radioactive waste. [117533]

  Mr. Morley
  There are a total of 280 operational landfill sites which are unlined. Details of these sites have been placed in the Library of the House. They are

  Landfill site

  Location

  Engineered containment status

  Cowpen Bewley

  Billingham, Cleveland

  No engineered containment (unlined), excavated in clay

  Hilts Quarry

  Crich, Derbyshire

  No engineered containment (unlined)

  Magnesium Elektron Swinton

  Swinton, Greater Manchester

  No engineered containment (unlined)

  Vickers Waste Ponds

  Walney Island, Cumbria

  No engineered containment (unlined)

  Braziers Landfill

  Hertfordshire

  No engineered containment (unlined)

  Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government has to replace the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee; and if she will make a statement. [116924]
  196W
  been signed. It also includes proposals that have been agreed at outline business case stage where a preferred bidder may not have been selected.

  We do not hold centrally a breakdown of credit allocations between incineration and non-incineration elements. However, some indication is available from the volumes of waste that are dealt with by the proposal and the new incineration capacity that was assumed in the approval. These figures are shown in the table.

  A proposal may be varied in the light of the market response following outline business case approval, in negotiations with preferred bidders and/or in the light of local planning decisions which may be made after contract signature. The Department is aware that at least one of the earlier approvals is likely to change significantly and in a way that reduces new incineration capacity, but we have yet to see revised proposals from the relevant local authority.

  broken down on the basis of the type of waste which can be accepted at the site—hazardous and non hazardous waste and inert waste.

  The Environment Agency advises that disposal of low-level radioactive waste is authorised under the Radioactive Substances Act 1993 at the following unlined sites in England and Wales.

  Mr. Morley
  Sponsoring Ministers are currently considering the future of the Radioactive Waste Management Advisory Committee (RWMAC) in light of the establishment of the new Committee on Radioactive Waste Management (CoRWM), that is being set up to carry forward the -Managing Radioactive Waste Safely" programme, and will announce their decision in due course.

  Recycling
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much waste was collected for recycling by each London borough in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03; and what percentage increase is required to meet the Government's target of 24 per cent. by 2005–06. [109542]

  Mr. Morley
  Data on the amount of household waste collected for recycling by each London Borough in 2001–02 are currently being updated by the GLA and can be obtained from the GLA managed waste website at: http://www.capitalwastefacts.com

  Data for 2002–03 are not yet available.

  Greater London had a household recycling rate of 9 per cent. in 2000–01. It is too soon to predict whether the London authorities will meet their 2005–06 targets, which are set out in the Guidance on Municipal Waste Management Strategies, which is available at: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/management/guidance/mwms/index.htm

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 28 February 2003,Official Report, column 7530, on waste management, if she will publish figures for the performance of local authorities against targets for waste recycling in 2001–02. [112297]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 12 Way 2003]: Figures for the performance of local authorities in 2001–02 against their statutory targets for waste recycling are collected as part of the Best Value regime and are available on the ODPM website; www.bvpi.gov.uk. The data are too extensive to be published in Hansard.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what estimate she has made of the additional expenditure needed to meet(a) the recycling targets and (b) the recovery targets of Waste Strategy 2000; [113081]

  (2) what estimate she has made of the additional expenditure needed to comply with the requirements of Article 5 of the Landfill Directive to (a) reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste sent to landfill to 75 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2010, (b) reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste to 50 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2013 and (c) reduce the amount of biodegradable municipal waste to 35 per cent. of 1995 levels by 2020. [113082]

  Mr. Morley
  The costs involved in meeting the Article 5 Landfill Directive targets and other waste strategy targets were set out in the Regulatory Impact Assessment published with Waste Strategy 2000.

  A base case was established and various policy mixes were costed against that base case. The additional costs of the policy mixes that should deliver the levels of recycling, composting and recovery needed to meet the waste strategy targets fell in the range £3.4 billion—£7.7 billion (net present value) over the 20 year period 2000–20.

  Waste Strategy 2000 stated that the proposed targets for the recovery and recycling of municipal waste may not impose net additional costs if it is assumed that a broad mix of waste management options will be
  198W
  required to meet the Landfill Directive targets; and that reliance on incineration and composting is unlikely to be viable.

  The Government already provide waste disposal authorities (WDAs) with significant resources in relation to their waste management which will enable them to carry out their waste related duties. For example, in the last two Spending Reviews the provision for Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services, including waste, have been increased by £1.8 billion for the period up 2005–06. Expenditure in the three financial years 2005–06 to 2007–08 will be dealt with in Spending Review 2004.

  Subsequent spending reviews will seek to deal with any additional burdens in future years. This is a sensible approach; when considering the costs of meeting the Landfill Directive targets, important considerations have to be taken into account; for example, the extent of the changes in comparative costs between landfill and alternative, more sustainable, disposal options.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of homes have a separate collection for recycling at least every two weeks of(a) glass, (b) paper, (c) metal food and drinks cans and foil, (d) plastics and (e) biodegradable waste; and what the average percentage is of these materials recycled by the homes that (i) have these collections, and (ii) those that do not. [117817]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The figures relate to 2001–02 which is the most recent year for which we have full statistics:

  The percentage of households that receive a kerbside collection of the following recycleable materials are:

  (a) glass—15 per cent.

  (b) paper—44 per cent.

  (c) metal cans and foil—20 per cent.

  (d) plastic—8 per cent.

  (e) compost—14 per cent.

  co-mingled 12 per cent.

  Co-mingled collections typically contain 2–5 materials and may or may not include those materials asked about above.

  The data to answer the second part of the question is not collected.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of homes in the UK have a collection of recyclable waste that is separated from their residual waste(a) at least once a week, (b) once every two weeks, (c) once every three weeks and (d) once every four weeks or less frequently; and what percentage of household waste is recycled from homes in each of the above categories. [117819]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: The figures relate to 2001–02 which is the most recent year for which we have full statistics:

  (a) weekly—17 per cent.

  (b) once every two weeks—39 per cent.

  (c) once every three weeks—0 per cent.

  (d) once every four weeks or less frequently—3 per cent.

  199W
  The recycling rates in each category are:

  (a) 12.5 per cent.

  (b) 10.7 per cent.

  (c)—

  (d)6.7 per cent.

  The recycling rates data excludes recycling from collections at Civic Amenity sites.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the percentage of household waste recycled in each local authority in England in the year 2001–02, broken down by region. [117820]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 9 June 2003]: Figures for the performance of local authorities in 2001–02 against their statutory targets for waste recycling are collected as part of the Best Value regime and are available on the ODPM website: www.bvpi.gov.uk.

  Satellites
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many research projects utilising satellites are(a) funded and (b) part funded by her Department, in each case giving (i) the title and aims of the work being undertaken, (ii) to whom this funding has been provided, (iii) the amount of funding which has and will be provided and (iv) when results have been published or are expected. [117342]

  Mr. Morley
  A table showing the current research projects funded or part funded by the Department using satellite derived data or technology has been placed in the Library of the House. Many other research projects use satellite GPS particularly those using the research vessels at CEFAS. There are non R&D uses for satellite technology especially the Sea Fisheries Inspectorate work and WaveNet.

  In addition to these external contracts the Rural Development Service, Geographic Information Unit provides in-house remote sensing advice and analysis. It has been involved in a number of external remote sensing projects including a project with the EC Joint Research Centre monitoring agri-environment features.

  Sustainable Development
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans the Government has to follow up issues arising from the Eleventh Meeting of the Commission for Sustainable Development. [119002]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 13 June 2003]: The eleventh session of the Commission for Sustainable Development (CSD)agreed a reform package and new work programme which focus on results and actions rather than textual negotiations. The outcome holds some promise that CSD will be able to fulfil its task of monitoring progress in the implementation a the outcomes of the Johannesburg World Summit on Sustainable Development and taking policy decisions to address constraints and obstacles.

  The UK is following up WSSD commitments in a number of ways, including through incorporating them into the Government's delivery planning system and
  200W
  taking them into account in the review of the sustainable development strategy for the UK, "A better quality of life". I refer the hon. Member to the Government's Memorandum on WSSD follow-up presented to the Environmental Audit Committee in February and which is deposited in the House Library. The UK will report to CSD on our progress and participate fully in its future sessions.

  Timber
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to encourage local authorities to source timber only from legal and sustainable sources. [117604]

  Mr. Morley
  The Department is working with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and the Improvement and Development Agency to raise awareness of sustainable procurement, including timber. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Meacher) wrote to local authority chief executives on 19 September, as explained in his previous answers of 27 January 2003,Official Report, column 564W, and 24 February 2003, Official Report, column 98W. He followed that letter up with a further one of 7 April 2003 to those that did not reply. A number of further replies have been received that indicate a generally positive picture in terms of their strategies for procuring timber.

  Tyres
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on recent discussions her Department has had with the retread tyre industry. [99236]

  Mr. Morley
  Ministers and officials in the Department hold numerous meetings with many and varied interests. However, as tyres are the responsibility of the Department of Trade and Industry, there have been no meetings with the retread tyre industry for some considerable time.

  Waste Management
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the recycling rates for unitary authorities in England are; and what the improvement target for each is. [100827]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested can be found on the Best Value Performance Indicator Website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, reference: www.bvpi.gov.uk

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department plans to take against those local authorities who fail to meet their recycling targets and continue to export waste out of their area of responsibility for landfill; and if she will make a statement. [115947]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State has powers under section 15 of the Local Government Act 1999 to act where authorities are failing to deliver best value. The way in which these powers would be used in support of statutory performance standards for recycling and composting of household waste is set out in Annex A of Guidance on Municipal Waste
  201W
  Management Strategies (DETR March 2001); http://www defra gov.uk/environment/waste/management/ guidance/mwms/index.htm The use of these powers will be considered where appropriate in support of the recycling targets. The Government have made clear that they will work with local authorities to ensure that failures are minimised, and that the principles that underpin the Waste Strategy, including the waste hierarchy and the proximity principle, are reflected in municipal waste management strategies.

  Licence holder

  Site address

  District

  Holder address

  Grid reference

  CP reference number

  Company group

  LFD class

  CF Harris Limited

  Blackhill Road, Arthington, West Yorkshire LS21 1PZ

  Leeds

  High Street, South Milford, Leeds LS25 5AA

  SE 269437

  61241

  CF Harris Limited

  Inert

  Caird Bardon Ltd.

  Ridge Road, Micklefield, Leeds, W. Yorks LS25 4DW

  Leeds

  Bardon Hill, Coalville, Leicestershire LE67 1TL

  SE 434000 325000

  61354

  Shanks & McEwan Ltd.

  Interim Hazardous

  Marshalls Pic

  Dewsbury Road, Woodkirk, Leeds, West Yorkshire WF12 7SS

  Leeds

  Howley Park Brickworks, Quarry Lane, Woodkirk, Dewsbury WF12 7JJ

  SE 264255

  61121

  Marshalls Pic

  Non Hazardous

  Mone Brothers Limited

  Kings Road, Bramhope, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS16 8BG

  Leeds

  Albert Road, Morley, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS27 8RU

  SE 269400 423100

  61148

  Mone Brothers Limited

  Inert

  P. Casey Enviro Ltd.

  Ring Road, Horsforth, Leeds, West Yorkshire

  Leeds

  Rydings Road, Rochdale, Lancashire OL 12 9PS

  SE 254000 384000

  61347

  P. Casey Enviro Ltd.

  Inert

  Biffa Waste Services Limited

  Howley Park, Quarry Lane, Dewsbury, West Yorkshire WF12 7JJ

  Leeds

  Coronation Road, Cressex, High Wycombe, Bucks HP123TZ

  SE 263100 53650

  61400

  Biffa Waste Services Ltd.

  Interim Hazardous

  Marshalls Pic

  Wakefield Road, Swillington, Leeds, West Yorkshire LS26 8BI

  Leeds

  Birkby Grange, Birkby Hall Road, Birkby, Huddersfield HD2 2YA

  SE 386100 315600

  65108

  Marshalls

  Non Hazardous

  Yorkshire Water Services Limited

  Knostrop WWTW, Knowsthorpe Lane, Leeds LS9 OPJ

  Leeds

  Western House, Western Way, Halifax Road, Bradford BD6 2SZ

  SE 340000 304000

  65116

  Yorkshire Water Services Limited

  Non Hazardous

  British Waterways Board

  Land N/W of Woodlesford Lock, Leeds, West Yorkshire

  Leeds

  Lock Lane, Castleford, West Yorkshire WF10 2LH

  SE 363000 297000

  65162

  British Waterways

  Non Hazardous

  Biffa Waste Services Ltd.

  Pontefract Lane, Rothwell, Leeds LS159AD

  Leeds

  Coronation Road, Cressex, High Wycombe, Bucks HP12 3TZ

  SE 362400 305000

  BJ9340

  Biffa

  Interim Hazardous

  British Waterways Board

  Thwaite Gate, Leeds

  Leeds

  Lock Lane, West Yorkshire WF10 2LH

  SE 327312

  61492

  British Waterways

  Non Hazardous

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many applications for modifications to waste management licences were received by the Environment Agency or its predecessor regulatory authority in each year since 1990. [116199]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency only has reliable information on waste management licence modifications from 1999–2000. Details are as follows:

  1999–2000 334

  2000–01 264

  2001–02 236

  Information for 2002–03 is not available as the Agency no longer collects data in this form.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what guidelines the Environment Agency uses to determine acceptable distances between(a) waste disposal and (b) landfill sites and neighbouring housing. [116200]

  Mr. Morley
  The initial decision on the location of waste facilities is a planning matter. Planning permission, which is a prerequisite for a waste management licence or
  202W
  Mir. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the waste sites and their addresses in the Leeds Metropolitan District, indicating those which have submitted hazardous waste landfill conditioning plans to the Environment Agency. [116019]

  Mr. Morley
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  a waste facility PPC permit from the Agency, can be refused if the local authority consider the site being proposed is in an inappropriate location.

  In dealing with its own licences/permits, the Agency adopts a site specific risk based approach on the Source—Pathway—Receptor principle and applies permit conditions accordingly, including monitoring requirements with indicative trigger levels which initiate specified actions by the site operator.

  Many existing waste sites have licences granted by predecessor authorities, based on a variety of approaches to the proximity of houses. The location of all occupied property is taken into account through the Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal (OPRA) scheme, which determines the frequency of Agency inspections to individual waste sites. The higher the risk the site poses and the closer occupied premises are located, the higher the OPRA score and, therefore, the more frequent the inspections.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the prosecutions brought by the Environment Agency or by predecessor regulatory authorities for breaking the conditions of(a) management site licences and

  203W
  (b) management site licences for bonded asbestos since 1990, broken down by (i) address of site and (ii) type of waste; and which prosecutions were successful. [116211]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has supplied the relevant data which will be placed in the House Library.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the Environment Agency's agreed amount of waste tonnage per year processed under site management licences is in(a) Leeds Metropolitan District and (b) West Yorkshire. [116325]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is unable to provide the information in the form requested. However, the following information may be helpful in making a comparison.

  In the year 2000–01, 632,912 tonnes of waste passed through waste transfer stations in the Leeds area compared to 1,543,799 tonnes in West Yorkshire as a whole (Bradford—471,162 tonnes; Calderdale—142,069 tonnes; Kirklees—233,847 tonnes; and Wakefield—63,809 tonnes).

  In the same period, 243,724 tonnes of waste passed through waste treatment facilities in the Leeds area compared to 427,226 tonnes in West Yorkshire as a whole (Bradford—4,045 tonnes; Calderdale—806 tonnes; Kirklees—12,794 tonnes; and Wakefield—165,857 tonnes).

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the registered licensed waste disposal and landfill sites in the Leeds Metropolitan District area. [116333]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has supplied the relevant data which will be placed in the House Library.

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2003

  HCI

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  PM

  Cd&T1

  Dudley (MES)

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Billingham (SITA)

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham (WRE)

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Sheffield (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Stoke (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Edmonton (LW)

  1

  0

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton(GMW)

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Huddersfield (SITA)

  1

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Crumlyn Burrows (HLC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  5

  3

  0

  10

  0

  0

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2003

  Hg

  Other metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs

  NHi

  Total exceedances

  Dudley (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Billingham (SITA)

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  2

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham (WRE)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Sheffield (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Stoke (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  204W
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what the average operator pollution risk appraisal score for waste disposal and landfill sites was in England in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [116334]

  Mr. Morley
  The average OPRA score for all landfill sites in the calendar year 2002 was 64.27.

  The average for non landfills was 66.33.

  The average for all sites was 65.70.

  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when municipal solid waste incinerators have been found to be operating in breach of conditions on their operations imposed by(a) planning consents and (b) pollution control consents in each year since 1997; and what assessment was made of the potential damage to the health of local residents in each case. [117530]

  Mr. Morley
  The numbers of unauthorised releases recorded by the Environment Agency for municipal waste incinerators since 1997 are shown in the tables.

  Municipal waste incineration plant operators are required by their permits to notify the Agency of any breaches of emission limits. Upon receipt of the notification Agency staff make an assessment of the likely effect of the breach on human health and the environment. The Agency considers that none of the breaches has had any significant effect on human health or the environment.

  With respect to the number of breaches of planning consents, this is the responsibility of the local planning authorities in whose areas the incinerators are located. My officials are making inquiries of the appropriate local planning authorities and I shall write to the hon. Member as soon as possible with the outcome of this exercise.
  205W

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2002

  Hg

  Other metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs

  NH3

  Total exceedances

  Edmonton (LW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  5

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton (GMW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Huddersfield (SITA)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Crumlyn Burrows (HLC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  19

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2002

  HCI

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  PM

  Cd&Tl

  Dudley (MES)

  11

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  2

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Billingham (SITA)

  2

  11

  3

  11

  2

  0

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  2

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  2

  0

  0

  Nottingham (WRE)

  2

  0

  8

  2

  3

  0

  Sheffield (Onyx)

  2

  0

  0

  17

  0

  0

  Stoke (MES)

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Edmonton (LW)

  2

  0

  0

  8

  0

  0

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton (GMW)

  1

  2

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Huddersfield (SITA)

  4

  3

  0

  14

  0

  0

  Total

  29

  17

  12

  57

  5

  0

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2002

  Hg

  Other metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs

  NH3

  Total exceedances

  Dudley (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  12

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Billingham (SITA)

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  0

  30

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  4

  0

  9

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  2

  Nottingham (WRE)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  15

  Sheffield (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  19

  Stoke (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Edmonton (LW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  10

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  1

  Bolton (GMW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  3

  Huddersfield (SITA)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  21

  Total

  0

  1

  0

  1

  4

  0

  126

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2000

  HCI

  SO2

  NO2

  CO

  PM

  Cd&Tl

  Dudley (MES)

  12

  0

  2

  0

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  1

  1

  1

  4

  2

  0

  Billingham (SITA)

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  7

  0

  0

  4

  2

  0

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  5

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Nottingham (WRE)

  7

  6

  16

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  15

  3

  5

  22

  0

  0

  Stoke (MES)

  9

  3

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Edmonton (LW)

  0

  0

  0

  9

  0

  0

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton (GMW)

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  60

  13

  27

  44

  5

  0

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2000

  Hg

  Other metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs

  NH3

  Total exceedances

  Dudley (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  14

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  9

  Billingham (SITA)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  3

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  13

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  8

  206W 207W

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2000

  Hg

  Other metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs

  NH3

  Total exceedances

  Nottingham (WRE)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  29

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  45

  Stoke (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  15

  Edmonton (LW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  9

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  1

  Bolton(GMW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  3

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  149

  Note:

  Collection of ammonia and VOCs data was not required by the Environment Agency until 2002 when they were included to ensure compliance with the requirements of the then, forthcoming, Waste Incineration Directive.

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2001

  HCI

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  PM

  Cd&Tl

  Dudley (MES)

  10

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  4

  0

  1

  2

  2

  0

  Billingham (SITA)

  1

  1

  2

  20

  1

  0

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  29

  2

  3

  57

  3

  0

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  0

  Nottingham (WRE)

  2

  0

  4

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  14

  1

  0

  21

  0

  0

  Stoke (MES)

  12

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  Edmonton (LW)

  2

  0

  6

  29

  2

  0

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Bolton(GMW)

  5

  0

  0

  3

  1

  0

  Total

  79

  6

  19

  135

  11

  0

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 2001

  Hg

  Other metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs

  NH3

  Total exceedances

  Dudley (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  13

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  9

  Billingham (SITA)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  25

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  94

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  3

  Nottingham (WRE)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  6

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  36

  Stoke (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  15

  Edmonton (LW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  39

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  1

  Bolton(GMW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  9

  Total

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  250

  Note:

  Collection of ammonia and VOCs data was not required by the Environment Agency until 2002 when they were included to ensun compliance with the requirements of the then, forthcoming, Waste Incineration Directive.

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 1999

  HCI

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  PM

  Cd&TI

  Dudley (MES)

  54

  6

  0

  1

  0

  0

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  23

  13

  0

  4

  0

  0

  Billingham (SITA)

  0

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  8

  0

  12

  33

  0

  0

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  4

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Nottingham (WRE)

  6

  8

  8

  0

  0

  0

  Sheffield

  17

  8

  6

  64

  1

  0

  Stoke (MES)

  19

  5

  2

  1

  1

  0

  Edmonton (LW)

  7

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  4

  2

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton(GMW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  142

  42

  29

  107

  3

  0

  208W 209W

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January-31 December 1999

  Hg

  Other metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs

  NH3

  Total exceedances

  Dudley (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  61

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  41

  Billingham (SITA)

  1

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  3

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  53

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  4

  Nottingham (WRE)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  22

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  96

  Stoke (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  28

  Edmonton (LW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  10

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  7

  Bolton(GMW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Total

  1

  0

  0

  1

  —

  —

  325

  Note:

  Collection of ammonia and VOCs data was not required by the Environment Agency until 2002 when they were included to ensure compliance with the requirements of the then, forthcoming, Waste Incineration Directive.

  MWls: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January 1996-31 December 1998

  HCI

  SO2

  NOx

  CO

  PM

  Cd&Tl

  Dudley (MES)

  58

  1

  0

  0

  8

  0

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  28

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Billingham (SITA)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  0

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  90

  0

  23

  19

  0

  0

  Nottingham (WRE)

  13

  2

  3

  1

  2

  0

  Sheffield

  7

  4

  7

  42

  2

  0

  Stoke (MES)

  12

  1

  1

  3

  2

  0

  Edmonton (LW)

  1

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  93

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Bolton(GMW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  302

  11

  34

  65

  16

  0

  MWIs: Number of unauthorised releases and enforcement actions

  1 January 1996-31 December 1998

  Hg

  Other metals

  HF

  Dioxins

  VOCs

  NH3

  Total exceedances

  Dudley (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  67

  Wolverhampton (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  29

  Billingham (SITA)

  0

  0

  1

  0

  —

  —

  1

  Coventry (C&S WDC)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  1

  Tyseley (Onyx)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  132

  Nottingham (WRE)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  21

  Sheffield

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  62

  Stoke (MES)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  19

  Edmonton (LW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  4

  Lewisham (Onyx Selchp)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  93

  Bolton(GMW)

  0

  0

  0

  0

  —

  —

  0

  Total

  0

  0

  1

  0

  —

  —

  429

  Note:

  Data are expressed for 1996, 1997 and 1998 inclusive.

  Collection of ammonia and VOCs data was not required by the Environment Agency until 2002 when they were included to ensure compliance with the requirements of the then, forthcoming, Waste Incineration Directive.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 17 March 2003,Official Report, column 506W, on waste management, whether the data used in the answer are the same as that given in the part of the Environment Agency Register of Waste Management Licences that applies to monitoring of emissions. [117570]

  Mr. Morley
  The municipal waste incinerators listed in the answer are regulated under Part 1 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 or the under the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (SI2000 No. 1973). Incinerator operators are required 210W
  by conditions of authorisations issued under these pieces of legislation to report breaches of air emission limit values. The data in the answer are derived from these self-reported breaches to the Environment Agency.

  The registers holding the data used in the answer are not the same as the data held as part of the Environment Agency Register of Waste Management Licences, which are kept under Part 2 of the Environmental Protection Act 1990.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Justices of the Peace
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, how much was paid in attendance allowances to justices of the peace in each of the last 10 financial years; and how much she estimates will be allocated in the current financial year. [118745]

  Mr. Leslie
  Lay justices of the peace are volunteers. They do not receive allowances for sitting in magistrates courts, but they are entitled to claim a financial loss allowance in certain circumstances, together with travel and other out of pocket expenses.

  Mental Capacity Legislation
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what 212W
  representations she has received asking her to introduce mental capacity legislation; and if she will make a statement. [119803]

  Mr. Lammy
  I have received many such representations from Members of Parliament, members of the public, representative organisations and others. Recently, members of the Making Decisions Alliance have been lobbying the Department and we have received over 7,800 postcards in support of legislation. My Department is currently preparing a draft Mental Incapacity Bill for publication, based on our Policy Statement 'Making Decisions'. We will introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows.

  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs, what plans the Department has to draft a Bill on mental capacity. [119806]

  Mr. Lammy
  My Department is currently preparing a draft Mental Incapacity Bill for publication, based on our Policy Statement 'Making Decisions'. We will introduce legislation when parliamentary time allows.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Credit Unions Annual Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  In accordance with Section 100 of the Industrial and Provident Societies Act (Northern Ireland) 1989 and Article 81 of the Credit Union (Northern Ireland) Order 1985 copies of the Credit Unions Annual Report 2001–02 have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses today.

  Companies Registry Annual Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ian Pearson)
  In accordance with Article 677 of the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, copies of the Companies Registry Annual Report 2001–02 have been placed in the Libraries of the House today.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Changes to Immigration Practice
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Beverley Hughes)
  The Government are committed to maintaining effective immigration control while at the same time ensuring that genuine passengers are able to pass through our ports with the least possible inconvenience.

  An essential part of our effort to maintain effective immigration control is to prevent passengers entering or remaining in the United Kingdom using forged documents. We have therefore been working with our EU colleagues on a new secure vignette to be used when people are granted permission to remain in this country. The new vignette, which will be placed in the holder's passport, follows a common EU-wide format allowing easy identification across the whole of the EU. This does not alter the conditions on which a person may enter the UK, or allow those people granted permission to remain in other EU countries to come to the UK. The vignette is solely a uniform and secure way of granting people permission to remain within each member state of the EU.
  6WS
  The new common format permit will be introduced in the UK from mid-September 2003.

  In parallel with this initiative we are introducing changes to the Immigration Rules which will require non-EEA nationals who wish to come to the UK for more than six months to obtain an entry clearance before travelling here. The entry clearance will be obtained from a British diplomatic mission overseas. This change reflects the need effectively to manage the flow of passengers through UK ports and at the same time provide a first class service to travellers. By introducing this change we intend to streamline the service provided to people who are coming to the UK. For people who are coming to this country for more than six months we do not believe that applying for entry clearance in advance of travel will prove an unreasonable burden. This approach will provide the best service to passengers and allows for the most efficient use of our resources.

  It is our intention that the new entry clearance arrangements will be introduced in stages over a two-year period. The first stage will involve introducing this requirement for nationals of 10 countries and will come into force from 13 November 2003. We will be publicising this change in advance but recognise that there may be some passengers who are not aware of this change. There will therefore be transition arrangements to ensure that genuine passengers are not unduly inconvenienced. A "grace period" will operate until 23.59 on 13 January 2004, during which any passenger who arrives at a UK port, and would qualify for entry except for the absence of the necessary entry clearance, will be admitted.

  Security for Small Retailers
  The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Blunkett)
  I am pleased to announce today the specific projects which will receive funding from the 2003–04 allocation from the Capital Modernisation Fund to assist small retailers in deprived areas to improve the security of their business.

  The sum of £5.8 million has been distributed to regions in England and Wales according to the formula based on an equal share for each region, crimes impacting on retailers and percentage of people living in the most deprived wards. The remaining £200,000 of the third year funding has been set aside for administration and evaluation.

  This year's funding will provide assistance to a minimum of 5,000 individual retailers and essential businesses. As in previous years, this funding will be spent on schemes identified by regional Home Office Directors, in conjunction with Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and a variety of interventions will be employed, including enhancing the security of individual premises and improving the environment of shopping parades. This will mean that over the three years of the initiative, since 2001, over 12,500 individual shop's units will have directly benefited from improved security measures.

  I have placed in the Library a paper showing the allocations of funds to individual projects. I have also written to hon. Members in England and Wales who have projects in their constituencies.

TREASURY

  FSA Annual Report
  The Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Paul Boateng)
  The Annual Report of the Financial Services Authority has today been laid before Parliament.8WS
  Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The Report forms a key part of the accountability mechanism for the Financial Services Authority under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000, and assesses the performance of the Financial Services Authority over the past 12 months against its statutory objectives.

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.

Endangered Species
Lord Hoyle Lord Hoyle asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they are taking to increase the length of sentences to control the trade in endangered species from two to five years.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty): My Lords, I am glad to tell the House that the Government are today tabling an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill, which received a Second Reading yesterday. It will provide for maximum prison sentences of five years for certain endangered species trade offences.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that very welcome announcement. If we are intent on stamping out illegal trade in endangered species, will the Minister also consider appointing more police wildlife liaison officers, as I understand that there are only six at present?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend tempts me to go beyond my powers. The deployment and designation of police officers is clearly a matter for chief constables. We understand that most police forces now have at least a part-time wildlife crime officer. They are augmented by the wildlife liaison department, which brings in other agencies in support of the police. That indicates that we take those wildlife offences very seriously.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, in welcoming the Minister's announcement, we should not allow ourselves to become too self-congratulatory. I hope that the Minister will agree that the announcement would not have been made had it not been for the very hard work of Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House of Commons. What is happening is welcome. The heavy involvement nowadays of the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS) in investigating this trafficking is also welcome. My next question may not be entirely appropriate, but the Minister should know the answer. Is he satisfied that NCIS is adequately resourced to play a proper part in the investigations? Some rare species give rise to very high-value products that are immensely corrupting.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, in response to the first part of the noble Lord's question, I am always happy to endorse the work of Back-Benchers of all parties in both Houses, but the charge of complacency on the
656
part of the Government is misplaced. We have always intended to increase the maximum sentence thereby making trade in endangered species an arrestable offence, and we have indicated so. We did not table an amendment during the Commons stages because we needed to take account of the full consultation, but we always intended so to do.
On resources, now that we have a partnership against wildlife crime involving all the agencies, there is significant additional focus on the area. Obviously, that must be kept under review. But the noble Lord is right that, while some of the offences may be inadvertent, others involve very serious criminal activities.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: My Lords, does the description "endangered species" cover occupants of the Woolsack?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, the technical answer is that that is probably doubtful. If one contemplates the previous incumbent, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Irvine, he had a rather successful period in a unique habitat and therefore does not seem endangered. The present Lord Chancellor, although we might be changing the name of the species, is clearly adaptable to several different changing habitats and is therefore not endangered.

Mental Health Services
2.40 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke Lord Ashley of Stoke asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress is being made by primary care organisations in England and Wales towards providing the range of care and treatment required by people recovering from mental illness.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, good progress is being made. The most recent data show that 212 out of 220 assertive outreach teams targeted in the NHS Plan are already in place. Progress is slower for some targets, such as early intervention and crisis resolution teams. But delivery plans prepared by strategic health authorities show that over 80 per cent of team targets and over 60 per cent of new worker targets are on course to be met. That confirms the report by the Commission for Health Improvement, published in February this year which concluded that, although mental health services started from a very low point, progress is being made and that this is bringing tangible rewards of better care and support for service-users and carers.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, I offer my noble friend a very warm welcome and wish him every success in his new post.
Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that 58 per cent of those involved in a recent

657
survey by MIND of people with mental health problems claimed that they were not receiving adequate treatment from the National Health Service? As that is such an enormous figure involving very vulnerable people, does it not pose a major challenge for the health service, especially as it is supposed to provide a comprehensive service? Will the Government look into those claims, and do what they can to help?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his kind remarks. It is true that the MIND report revealed areas of great concern. We all acknowledge that, with mental health services, we are starting from a pretty low base. But one of the particularly good things happening is the project to strengthen the workforce with up to 1,500 new graduate primary care workers and gateway workers working in primary care teams coming on-stream by the end of 2004. It is a people industry. We are doing a lot of work to encourage more people into this area of work.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I also congratulate the Minister on his return to the government Benches in such style. I am sure that he has not considered all the nuances of the MIND report on mental health—the hidden costs report to which the noble Lord. Lord Ashley of Stoke referred. However, is not the current National Health Service prescription policy one of the core problems? Sufferers of chronic diseases such as epilepsy and diabetes do not have to pay for prescriptions. The noble Lord, Lord Lipsey, when launching the report on Monday, described the NHS prescription policy as a "dog's dinner". Does the Minister agree with that?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am not sure what dogs eat, but I shall be happy to look into prescription charges. I do not promise any changes, because I am still finding my way around this subject. I shall study the MIND report, and shall be happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, notwithstanding the uncertainty of the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about dogs' diets, there is a warm welcome for him from this side of the House in the difficult job that he now faces. Bearing in mind that the problem for mental patients starts when they leave hospital, will the noble Lord assure us that care has been considered, and given, to patients who have left mental care but need constant surveillance, especially with regard to diet and drug intake?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Knight, for her kind remarks. I share her concerns about people with psychiatric conditions leaving longer-stay and medium-stay hospitals. The Government are putting much emphasis on strengthening primary care teams. We are bringing in new people to work in the area, so that the support in the community can be strengthened. That is why we
658
should be positive about the assertive outreach teams. They sound jargonish, but the people involved work at a local level finding hard-to-help people with mental illness and providing them with support and services.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied with the treatment of mentally ill people in prison and the links with the community when they are discharged?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I know from my previous incarnations that big changes are in prospect as the NHS takes greater responsibility for prison health services. We are seeing a changeover, with more prisons in England and Wales for which the NHS is providing the health service. We expect there to be considerable improvements over time. However, there is a backlog of service development in the prison health services just as there is in mental health outside the Prison Service. Progress is being made, and more than 40 prisons now receive health services from the NHS under local agreements.
Baroness Uddin: My Lords, I warmly welcome my noble friend Lord Warner to the Front Bench. I am sure that he recognises that the level of services for black and minority people with mental illness remains highly inappropriate because he had an enormous amount of contact with black men in his previous incarnation. What does my noble friend intend to do about that problem? How will he ensure that the level of service provided is in tandem with our commitment to equality of opportunity legislation?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Uddin for her remarks. The Government published a document in March called Inside Outside: Improving Mental Health Services for Black and Minority Ethnic Communities in England. That report signals an important step forward to support the reform of mental health services for people from black and minority ethnic communities in this country. Again, there is a large heritage of change and problems to be tackled. We are trying to engage with these areas of difficulty, and we recognise that the black and minority ethnic communities have much ground to make up in terms of their access to mental health services.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I, too, welcome the noble Lord, Lord Warner, to the Front Bench with responsibility for health matters. I am sure that he, like me, is eagerly awaiting the Health and Social Care Bill from another place. I promise him interesting times this summer and autumn. Is the Minister aware of the Royal College of Psychiatrists' estimate that one in three consultants intend to retire early? What will the Government do to deal with that imminent crisis in the NHS?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, for her remarks. I am not sure whether her promise was a promise—or, indeed, a

659
threat—but I shall take it in the spirit in which it was offered. I am aware of the shortage of psychiatrists and of the prospect of further retirements that she mentioned. I am not fully up to steam on everything going on in this particular area, so I can only speak with all the authority on this subject that 24 hours in the job justifies. However, I shall look into the matter and will be in touch with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, we also welcome the noble Lord, Lord Warner. We are sorry to lose him so quickly from these Benches. Having heard about all that will happen in the statutory sector, how does the noble Lord see the role of the voluntary organisations working in this area of supporting mentally ill people? Much of the work is carried out by organisations such as Saneline, MIND and YoungMinds, many of which are struggling. What support will the Government give in addition to that given to the statutory sector?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for her remarks. She will know that my noble friend Lord Filkin, in his previous incarnation, worked with the voluntary sector through initiatives like the futurebuilders fund to improve capacity in the voluntary sector.
The Government take this area seriously. We want to see the voluntary sector make a full contribution to the development of these kinds of services, which are valued by the public. They often have a unique capacity to make provision with a particular added value. Mental health is an area that will be open to the voluntary sector to use the kind of capacity-building strengths that the Government are introducing to help to develop services.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, in view of mental health, and other, problems with prisoners—67 per cent of whom are illiterate—is the Minister happy that only one in 20 of them can get to education programmes at Brixton? Is that the policy of Her Majesty's Government? Can the Government help people in this way?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord's queries do not have much to do with the Question. I leave him to pursue his inquiries with the Minister responsible.

Directors' Remuneration
2.50 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis Lord Clinton-Davis asked Her Majesty's Government:
What additional steps they propose to empower shareholders to act when they consider that pay packages proposed for executives are too generous.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, in August 2002, the Government introduced the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002, which give shareholders of quoted companies a vote on the directors' remuneration report. These regulations need to be given time to demonstrate their full effect; we will be reviewing their operation.
On 3rd June 2003, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry published a consultation document entitled "Rewards for Failure": Directors' Remuneration—Contracts, Performance and Severance. Any further government action on this issue will be considered in the light of responses to this consultation.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, is there not a case immediately for cutting out anomalies that arise wherever necessary? Does the Minister agree that severance pay ought to be linked to corporate performance? Is there not a case for ensuring that fund managers are held responsible for the decisions that they make on pay and corporate strategy?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I totally agree that the absolute key issue here is that there should be an effective linkage between pay and performance. The main people responsible for making this happen are the shareholders, and that is why we brought in the Directors' Remuneration Report Regulations 2002. Those regulations only came into force for companies producing reports after 31st December 2002. It is encouraging how many cases we have already seen where shareholders have made it clear that they were dissatisfied with the remuneration report of companies. We would like to see that continue.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister accept that this is probably the tenth time that this Question, or an equivalent Question, has been asked from his side of the House over the past 12 months, all of which he has answered in similar terms? This is obviously a major issue that the Minister must deal with. Noble Lords will realise that the answer that the Minister gives has always had the merit of consistency on the past 10 occasions that he has given it.
Will he give a date by which the Government will make up their mind whether the voluntary system works? It would also be helpful if he could indicate

661
whether that date is within the time frame to put legislation, if necessary, in the Companies Bill when it comes forward?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree that I have answered this Question many times in recent years, but I have not been consistent with the Answer. There has been a changing situation. The noble Lord should take on board that we have introduced a major change, and, as I pointed out, this major change is already having a substantial effect.
In the first six months of this year, we have seen major votes: the 51 per cent vote at the GlaxoSmithKline annual general meeting and substantial votes against the remuneration report at the Royal and SunAlliance and at HSBC and at the AGMs of Reuters, BP, Shell and Boots.
It is clear that the action the Government have taken is having real effect, and it therefore seems to me to be eminently sensible to wait and see what effect that has. I am not under any illusions that I will not continuously be asked this Question over the next six months or year.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the Minister agree that another way of helping the process along and giving practical advice might be to suggest to shareholders who were dissatisfied with the performance of a company in which they were investing in any way that they should sell the shares and invest elsewhere? I know of people who have done that.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, that is good advice. Companies will take heed of that, as they will of votes at the AGMs, where they do not like it at all, if a substantial number of shareholders vote against the remuneration report.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, can the Minister tell the House whether he believes that there could ever be a satisfactory statutory definition of the words "too generous" used in the Question? How can we ensure, on the one hand, that there are no huge remuneration packages for failure while, on the other hand, ensuring that packages are large enough to entice the best brains to come into companies in our country?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I do not think that Ministers ever have personal beliefs. In this context, they always speak for the Government.
We have a clear view that the Government cannot try to determine exactly what the remuneration of directors should be. It is simply not possible. However, that is not a reason for not trying to give shareholders an opportunity to make their views known to the board. We will see boards taking that very seriously.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, when one thinks of shareholders, one thinks of individual employees, but that is not necessarily the case. When we talk about shareholders, we talk about institutions. My experience is that, when decisions are taken on remuneration—even if the decision is that people should not have such remuneration—they are taken by the big institutions, and the small investors are ignored. Will the Government bear that in mind in any forthcoming legislation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord. It is true that most shares are held by fund managers. However, in the revolts against pay packages at AGMs, we have seen small shareholders and fund managers joining forces to make their views known.
Lord Dubs: My Lords, I wish to pursue the point about fund managers. Can my noble friend say a little more about the position of people who own shares indirectly, for example, through PEPs and ISAs or through pension funds such as the parliamentary pension fund? What influence can such indirect shareholders have on the votes cast at meetings?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the first thing that they can do is make certain that the fund managers take a responsible view. Again, it is a question of people who have invested money in an area making certain that the organisations behave responsibly.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, will the Government compel such pension funds and others to make their votes public, so that we can know what they have voted on our behalf?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, we have no plans to do that at the moment. The issue has been raised several times, and it would be necessary to look carefully at the practicalities.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, I am pleased that my noble friend says that pay should be related to performance. What view does he take of a state-owned company—Network Rail—paying its directors bonuses of £1.7 million, with five executives receiving £1.2 million, for standards of performance—in efficiency and investment—that were lower than those of the discredited Railtrack?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, there are cases in which one has concerns about particular situations. However, in this case, it is not for the Government to say whether that is right or wrong.

Afghanistan: Opium Production
3 p.m.
Baroness Northover Baroness Northover asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress they have made in moving towards the commitment in last year's spending review to reduce opium production in Afghanistan by 70 per cent in five years.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, this is an ambitious target and has been embraced in the Afghan national drug strategy adopted by President Karzai on 19th May. Progress will be tracked against the annual estimates of cultivation and production calculated by the United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime and the United States. Results will be published later this year. We have made £70 million available over the next three years and will post additional British Embassy drug experts to Afghanistan to assist the Afghan authorities with implementation of their strategy.
Baroness Northover: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Surely the Chancellor's pledge echoed the words of the Prime Minister: "We will not desert the people of Afghanistan". Yet in 2001 the Taliban almost eliminated opium production. Does the noble Baroness agree that now the security vacuum in Afghanistan has allowed the poppy harvest to expand again and that this year it is on course for a bumper harvest? Afghanistan is once more the leading player in the heroin market in the world. It provides 90 per cent of the heroin in Britain. Does the Minister have any optimism that the pledge to which she has just referred will be met? If that is still the Government's aim, what strategy do they now have for bringing security and prosperity to Afghanistan and for thus eliminating the opium trade?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness should not underestimate our efforts with £70 million over three years and, indeed, British experts going to assist the Afghan authorities. Those are very important building blocks. We shall also be establishing a British Embassy drugs unit in Kabul and a Customs-led law enforcement unit in Kandahar. So real efforts are being made on behalf of the British Government.
The noble Baroness makes the point that has been made before in your Lordships' House about the Taliban. Of course, it is true that in 2001 the Taliban managed to ban cultivation. But that ban was enforced by means of fear and bribery to which I am happy to say the current government in Afghanistan do not espouse. What is important is that last year we managed to destroy about a quarter of the crop, although there was an increase. This year, although there may be some increases, we hope that we shall have reliable figures available. I stress to the noble Baroness that the strategy began less than a month
664
ago. We must give it a chance to succeed. As I indicated in my initial Answer, President Karzai signed up to it less than a month ago.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, does the Minister agree that opium is being cultivated in these countries—whether in Peru or Afghanistan—because people are very poor and look on this as the very best cash crop that they can produce? Research in South America showed that provided the people were able to produce another crop that was equally profitable, they moved over. Once that crop became less profitable, they moved back to drug growing. So is it not important to ensure that efforts are made to provide alternative means of living for people who are growing these crops?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Gardner of Parkes, has put her finger absolutely on the point. During the years that the Taliban in Afghanistan stopped the cultivation, it did not stop alas the processing and trafficking of those drugs. The Taliban regime went on profiting from drugs while the original producers became poorer and poorer. That is why it is so important to have a strategy in place that does not just involve banning but tries to put something else in place; namely, promoting alternative livelihoods for farmers, improving drug law enforcement, supporting capacity building for other institutions in the country for enforcement, and raising the problems around public awareness in Afghanistan and other countries that are producing drugs.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, is the Minister aware that a report from Afghanistan in the Guardian last week stated that the international effort led by the United Kingdom to reduce poppy cultivation there had failed spectacularly? Following the question from my noble friend Lady Gardner of Parkes, will the Minister say whether the Government have given attention to one of the main problems about substitute crops—that is, the problem of transport?
In hilly countries such as Afghanistan where there are few roads, it is very simple for one person to carry on his back a plastic bag full of heroin which is worth a very large sum of money. It is difficult to think of any other crops that are so valuable and do not require road transport. Have the Government considered other countries with similar characteristics which have faced this problem to determine whether they have reached any conclusion?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is very important to consider the questions around production and certainly questions around the transportation of drugs. We are putting a very particular effort into Afghanistan, not only because of the parlous position of Afghanistan as we found it and

665
the need in terms of its own development, but also because a very high percentage of heroin consumed in this country originates there. Some 90 per cent of the heroin on our streets originates in Afghanistan.
The point that the noble Lord makes about what is happening on the ground is very much part and parcel of the point made by his noble friend Lady Gardner. It is not just a question of how we ban these drugs being grown in various countries in the world and how we ensure that we learn from the experiences in different parts of the world; we must have a real strategy in place. Indeed, I read the article to which the noble Lord referred, but so far the strategy has not had a proper chance to succeed. There will not be any shortcuts. We are in this for the long haul.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, how can the Minister think that there can be a national drugs strategy when President Karzai does not control four-fifths of the country? Does she not think that the real answer is an extension of the mandate of ISAF so that the rule of law can be extended to the areas where the drugs are grown? Furthermore, can the Minister say whether serious concern has been expressed over the payments made last year to farmers for the growing of alternative crops, including anxieties expressed by the British Ambassador in Kabul that fraudulent use was being made of these payments?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course I agree that it would be very much preferred if the writ of the government ran throughout the country. I stress to the noble Lord that the points I made in answering the noble Baroness, Lady Northover, also included the United Kingdom consolidating its own efforts to help in the country. I note the point that the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, makes about remarks from our own embassy, but we shall be establishing a British Embassy drugs unit in Kabul and our experts will be going in. I believe that we plan to send in 10 experts during the next few weeks to help the authorities on the ground throughout the whole of Afghanistan in combating this terrible ill. We shall also be putting in more of an effort with a Customs-led law enforcement drug unit in Kandahar. So it is not just in one centre but in two centres where we shall be giving some long-term help.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, preferential access for farmers or free trade?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there was an interrogative by intonation but I am not quite sure of the question asked by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley. I do not believe that the Government's espousal of free trade runs to the drug trade and I think that the noble Viscount knows that.

Zimbabwe
3.8 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever asked Her Majesty's Government:
What representations they have made concerning the illegal detention of opposition politicians in Zimbabwe.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the Foreign Secretary issued a statement at the arrest of Morgan Tsvangirai and other M DC MPs and activists. We also contributed to an EU statement on 3rd June and another on 6th June expressing our concern at the arrest and making it clear that we regard this as further evidence of the Mugabe regime's repressive and intimidating measures against the opposition. Zimbabwe's ruling party should be talking to its opposition, not jailing it.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that response. Images of Morgan Tsvangirai shackled in leg irons and evidence of widespread torture are stark reminders of the escalating brutality against opposition politicians in detention. Have Her Majesty's Government offered support for the establishment of an African Court of Justice to be discussed at the African Union Summit next month?
Pending the establishment of such a court, what co-operation has been forthcoming from African Union members on using existing mechanisms of the UN and other international institutions to arraign Mugabe for flagrant abuse of human rights?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. I think that the images of Morgan Tsvangirai shackled in court were both shocking and—perhaps I may say—disgusting. The noble Lord raises the question of the African Court of Justice. One of the real problems, as I am sure the whole House understands, is that every time the British Government make a statement about what is happening in Zimbabwe, the Mugabe regime turns it around to make it into a bilateral row between two countries. It gives them the opportunity to move away from the rightfully aimed hostility of the international community and to say that somehow it is a residue of colonial rule. We are therefore very careful in what we say about African institutions, which we believe are very much for the African nations themselves to sort out.
The noble Lord referred to what is happening at the United Nations. When I answered the noble Lord's Question on 3rd June, the noble Baroness, Lady Park, asked me what had happened at the UN Commission on Human Rights. I am sure your Lordships will recall that when we tried to table a resolution at the 59th session, it fell because of a no-action motion proposed by South Africa on behalf of the African group. We have to tread very carefully over these issues. We are quite clear about what we think is happening, but we

667
do not want this to become a bilateral dispute. It must be dealt with internationally and attract international support.
Lord Acton: My Lords, have the Government been in touch directly with South Africa on this matter?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I understand that this matter was discussed with President Mbeki at the G8 meeting. He said that his understanding was that ZANU-PF and the MDC were engaged in a process of dialogue, which was fully supported by the ANC. He said that he was quite certain that an agreement on the way forward would he reached in the near future. I hope that he is right, but I believe the indications of what has happened in the past week or so must make us quite downbeat about our assessment of that.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, will the Minister join me in welcoming the report that Mugabe has indicated to President Mbeki that he is prepared to step down? Will she also agree that it would be unacceptable for him to hand over to Emerson Mnangagwa and that the whole of the present ZANU-PF regime must take responsibility for the appalling situation in which Zimbabwe now finds itself? In view of the unprecedented joint rebuke by the Secretary-General of the United Nations and Mr. Cohn Powell, the US Secretary of State, will the Minister further agree that it is time for the international community as a whole, and SADC in particular, to recognise that there needs to be a re-run of the elections in order to get rid of the existing brutal and repressive regime?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, if it were true that Mr. Mugabe had said what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, reports him as saying, and if he really did it, it would he greatly welcomed. Like the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, I hope that any leader subsequently chosen for Zimbabwe would be chosen by a fair and free election, properly monitored.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, following the threats made by President Mugabe against our High Commissioner, will the Minister indicate what is the present situation of the High Commission?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the noble Baroness will know that as part of his campaign of trying to turn this into a bilateral row, rather than addressing the real issue of starving his people and his complete abuse of human rights, Mr. Mugabe said that the British High Commission was behind the stay-away last week and has threatened our High Commissioner with being kicked out of Zimbabwe. I can assure all your Lordships that the British Government and the British High Commission had no role whatever in funding or in any way organising the stay-away protest that took place between 2nd and 6th June. The British Government and British High Commission do not and will not support any illegal
668
activity. Knowing our High Commissioners as I do, I am sure that Sir Brian Donnelly and his staff remain in very good heart.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, my noble friend is right to be very careful about what she says. Is she aware that it is extremely difficult to read the situation from this distance? We are repeatedly told about discussions between the MDC and the government concerning a proper constitutional settlement, yet recently the MDC has publicly said that under no circumstances will it have any truck with Mr. Mugabe or, following the noble Lord, Lord Astor, with any of the ZANU-PF regime, and the general strike called last week was to bring down the government. In view of the vastly deteriorating situation, is there not a case for all sides, both in this House and in Zimbabwe, to have a care as to what they say and to try to institute further discussions in the hope that the tragedy will not deepen any further?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, that is very wise advice from my noble friend, especially in view of the possibility of inflaming an already very dangerous situation in Zimbabwe. I am sure that your Lordships will be mindful of the fact that Morgan Tsvangirai and a number of his colleagues are already in prison; that Morgan Tsvangirai is in the middle of one treason trial; that he may stand charged with another set of treason accusations; and that he may have to face yet a further trial, if he survives the first. I would commend to all your Lordships the words of my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary, when he said:
"Zimbabwe's most urgent need now is the resumption of inter-party dialogue to address the country's rapidly worsening political, economic and humanitarian crisis".
Real, constructive engagement is needed. Whatever our doubts, scepticism or fears, that is what we must support.

Business of the House: Debates, 3rd July
3.16 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Williams of Mostyn): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to advance the Second Reading of the Taxation (Information) Bill and the Motion standing in the name of the Lord McIntosh of Haringey from 4th July to 3rd July next.—(Lord Williams of Mostyn.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Road Traffic (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
3.17 p.m.
Read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Sexual Offences Bill [H.L.]
3.18 p.m.
Read a third time.
Clause 1 [Rape]:
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, leave out lines 9 to 17 and insert—
"( ) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.
( ) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I know that the Committee spent about a day and a half debating this group of amendments. I hope that noble Lords will find that the new proposed amendments will meet the concerns that have been raised during the passage of the Bill about the way in which the test of reasonableness in relation to consent has been drafted, and how it will work in practice.
Objections were raised about basing the test on what a "reasonable person" would have thought or how a "reasonable person" would have acted in the circumstances. Our test was criticised on the basis that it was not clear what characteristics should be assumed by the jury in seeking to take on the role of a "reasonable person".
To satisfy those concerns, the revised version of the reasonableness test moves away from the concept of the "reasonable person" and requires the prosecution to prove that the defendant did not have a reasonable belief in consent. The test is supported by an explanation of the type of criteria to be used to determine whether the defendant's belief in consent was reasonable in relation to the alleged offence. The jury is directed to have regard to all the circumstances at the time, including any steps that the defendant may have taken to establish that the complainant consented to the sexual activity.
Although we recognise that not every sexual act has to be preceded by specific actions on the part of the defendant, especially where the defendant and complainant are in a well established, consensual sexual relationship, it is still imperative that the defendant must be certain that his partner consents to the sexual activity at the time in question. Doubt is most likely to arise in those cases where the defendant and the complainant are not in a well established relationship and where it would be reasonable to expect the defendant to take steps to ensure consent. Our reasonableness test does not require the defendant to have taken any specific steps but makes it clear that where such steps have been taken they must be taken into account by the jury in deciding whether the defendant's claimed belief in consent was reasonable. Some might argue that that goes without saying, but we believe that it is important to send a clear message to everyone that sexual acts with another person must be mutually agreed and that we all have an individual responsibility to ensure that that is the case.
670
We believe that the new version of the reasonableness test addresses the concerns previously expressed by several noble Lords and sets the standard that we believe to be right and justified. I hope that I can rely upon the support of the House in those matters.
I turn now to the amendments that have been tabled in relation to the rebuttable presumptions in Clause 76. There has already been a considerable amount of discussion in the House about the justification for the rebuttable and conclusive presumptions now set out in Clauses 76 and 77 of the new print of the Bill. It is not my intention to rehearse all of the arguments that have already been put forward in detail. I know that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, spent some time on that detail.
In support of Clause 76, I must repeat that we believe there to be great value in making clear in statute the circumstances in which consent is unlikely to be present and in which the jury should be entitled to presume, either rebuttably—or, in the case of clause 77, conclusively—that the sexual activity complained of was non-consensual. However, one criticism that has been levelled against the rebuttable presumption provisions is that they unfairly placed a persuasive burden on the defendant in relation to his belief in consent, and that the clause was muddled and difficult for juries to understand because of the way in which the burden of proof shifted between the prosecution and the defence.
In order to alleviate those concerns, I am tabling government Amendments Nos. 86, 87, 88 and 89. They amend the provisions relating to rebuttable presumptions in Clause 76 so that they place an evidential, rather than a persuasive, burden on the defendant. The way in which the rebuttable presumptions will now work is that, where the prosecution is able to prove that the defendant did a relevant act, as defined in Clause 78, that the circumstances described in subsection (2) existed and that the defendant knew that those circumstances existed, the complainant will be presumed not to have consented to the relevant act and the defendant will also be presumed not to have reasonably believed that the complainant consented.
In order for those presumptions not to apply, the defendant will need to satisfy the judge from the evidence that there is a real issue about consent that is worth putting to the jury. The evidence relied on may be, for example, evidence that the defendant himself gives in the witness box, or evidence given on his behalf by a defence witness, or evidence given by the complainant during cross-examination. If the judge is satisfied that there is sufficient evidence to justify putting the issue of consent to the jury, then the issues will have to be proved by the prosecution in the normal way.
If the judge does not think the evidence relied on by the defendant meets this threshold, he will direct the jury to find the defendant guilty, assuming the jury is sure that the defendant did the relevant act, that the

671
circumstances in subsection (2) applied and that the defendant knew that. I hope that the House will agree that the revised provisions in Clause 76, in which all noble Lords have had a hand, will be easier to understand and that they effectively address the concerns that have been raised
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, tabled Amendment No. 91, which seeks to remove Clause 76, in order to raise concerns about the way in which the reformulated clause empowers the judge to decide whether a defendant has produced sufficient evidence to raise an issue about consent for the issue to merit consideration by the jury. I would like the House to consider that similar evidential burdens exist across the statute book—for example, at Section 53 of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 and Sections 12(4), 39(5)(a), 54, 57, 58, 77 and 103 of the Terrorism Act 2000. I understand the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, but I also know that he is familiar from his long practice at the Bar with the judicious and well-founded way in which our judges address the issue. I hope that he will share my confidence in the judiciary and feel that, if there is an issue that should be left to the jury, the judges of our country can be relied on to make sure that they are so left.
A non-statutory example of an evidential burden is to be found in relation to the law on provocation. Unless the judge finds that there is sufficient evidence that the defendant was provoked to lose his self-control, he will withdraw the defence of provocation from the jury. As far as I am aware, evidential burdens work well and have not been the subject of criticism in those circumstances, and I see no reason why adopting an evidential burden in relation to the presumptions in Clause 76 should be unwelcome or problematic.
As Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 6 and 8, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, are purely consequential—to remove references to Clause 76 elsewhere in the Bill if Clause 76 were to be struck out—I do not feel that I need to make a formal response to them. The noble Lord has also proposed, by way of Amendment No. 94, that Clause 78 should be struck from the Bill. That would not be a purely consequential amendment that would follow on if Clause 76 were to be struck out, as Clause 78 also defines relevant acts for the purposes of Clause 77 and is therefore integral to the functioning of Clause 77. For those reasons, I must oppose any suggestion that Clauses 76 or 78 should be struck from the Bill.
I turn to the conclusive presumptions in Clause 77. I am tabling government Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 in response to the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, during Committee stage. Subsections (1) and (2) of Clause 77 provide that where the only evidence adduced by the defendant in relation to consent is based on something said or done by a third party, it will be conclusively presumed that the defendant acted unreasonably. The noble Lord, Lord Carlile, suggested that it would be unfair to impose a conclusive presumption in relation to the reasonableness test where the defendant was a person
672
with a mental disorder or learning disability who could not be expected to understand that a third party was deceiving him as to the truth.
On reflection, we believe that the noble Lord is right, and our amendments remove that provision from Clause 77. Where the defendant bases his belief in consent solely on evidence from a third party, the jury will now be required to consider, in the normal way, whether such a belief was reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. There are now only two circumstances, set out in Clause 77, in which it shall be conclusively presumed that consent was not present—namely, where the defendant deceived the complainant about the nature or purpose of the sexual act or where he deceived the complainant as to his identity by impersonating someone known personally to the complainant. The conclusive presumptions are based on existing statute and case law and we are satisfied that it is right that the new legislation should reflect that position.
For the reasons I have given, I regret that 1 cannot accept any of the amendments that have been tabled. I hope that the House will support the government amendments. I beg to move.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, as the burden of the debate seems to be my amendment, I wonder whether it is convenient for me to deal with it now or whether the House would prefer that I let the Front Benches go first.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, it may perhaps be more appropriate for those who have had the argument to state our position. I do not know whether to say we were entering the broad sunlit uplands or whether I was more reminded of the Pastoral Symphony. We have had the peasant dancing and the thunderstorms and now we have come to the broad theme of the final movement in which the Minister is now playing her part. I am glad to say that they are playing my tune, so we on these Benches fully support the amendments.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I welcome the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to our deliberations at this late stage of the Bill. She is most welcome. I thank her for introducing the amendments in the way that she did. These amendments typify the constructive approach that all parties have taken throughout the passage of the Bill.
While I welcome the noble Baroness to our proceedings, I hope that she will not take it the wrong way if I say that we miss the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor today. Both he and his excellent team of officials at the Home Office have won the respect of these Benches for the open-minded way in which the Bill has been tackled. We believe that the Bill will leave this House a very much better Bill than when it arrived. I wish to place on record the appreciation of these Benches for the work that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did to achieve that.

673
I turn to the amendments. From the outset we on these Benches supported the search for a reasonableness formula that is capable of being workable and effective. We believe that the formulation set out in Amendment No. 1 achieves that.
At various stages of the Bill I raised with the Government what sort of reasonableness they intended and I tabled amendments to seek to ensure that the characteristics of the defendant, such as extreme youth or mental incapacity, would be taken into account in determining reasonableness. At Report stage the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said that the judge and jury could be relied upon to identify the characteristics that should be taken into account.
I was, however, concerned when the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke of Thorndon, described the position in New Zealand. The High Court there has held—in connection with the reasonableness test which it has had for some time—that intellectual impairment should be disregarded. My simple question to the Minister is this: do the Government intend that the Bill, with the amendments that we are discussing, will require judges and juries to take into account, in the appropriate circumstances, factors such as intellectual impairment and extreme youth? Or do the Government believe that, as in New Zealand, such factors will have to be disregarded?
I turn to the presumptions in Clauses 76 and 77. We welcome the way in which the rebuttable presumptions in Clause 76 now involve an evidential rather than a persuasive burden. However, we remain concerned that the list set out in subsection (2) may be taken as a definitive list of circumstances that are relevant. We remain concerned about the exclusion of threats of non-immediate violence, of economic harm and of other abuses of a relationship of power.
We have some concerns about the conclusive presumptions in Clause 77 as we believe that they may, in admittedly rare circumstances, work against justice. We accept the Government's position on Clauses 76 and 77 but I register those concerns.
Let me not end on a down note. We genuinely appreciate the way in which the Government approached these issues. I am pleased on behalf of these Benches to support the Government's amendments.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on this matter I want to say at the outset that I have confidence in the judiciary—the noble Baroness well knows that—and I have every confidence in juries. She also knows that. I have every confidence in the presumption of innocence, and I expect that she will accept that. But I have no confidence whatever in what has been produced by the Front Benches of the three political parties as regards Clause 77.
Before I come to that—it is the nub of this debate, I think—I want to say that the partially objective/subjective approach on Amendment No. 6 on Report
674
would have been supported if it had been tabled at Third Reading. I support Amendment No. 1 today and the sister Amendments Nos. 3, 4 and 5, which in effect achieve a like result. But I have one question on which I seek confirmation: is the intellectual disability of the accused taken account of in this formulation? It is not in New Zealand, which has another formulation. I am not sufficiently expert to know whether it is or is not taken into account in the formulation that we are discussing. That is a matter of crucial importance which was first raised by my noble friend Lord Astor of Hever at Second Reading. It was taken up and expanded by, I believe, the noble Lord, Lord Carlile of Berriew, by other noble Lords and, to some extent, by myself, in Committee. If this is a truly partially objective/subjective approach, then I seek that confirmation. If there is any doubt about it, for avoidance of doubt could the clause be redrafted to take account of that when it reaches another place?
Now I turn to the nub of contention. Before I come to it, of course I accept Clause 77, as amended by Amendments Nos. 92 to 93, because that in effect reflects the all but inevitable position that would arise in any event on conviction. This will not be a very long dissertation but it is intended to be objective so that we may see the fine print and examine the consequences which I do not believe for a moment have been properly examined by the three noble Lords concerned in arriving at this deal.
It is accepted at the outset that but for Clause 76 the overall burden of proof remains on the Crown to establish beyond all reasonable doubt on a charge laid under Clause 1(3), as it will be amended, that the accused did not reasonably believe in all the circumstances that there was consent, taking account of any steps taken to ascertain whether there was consent. That is a straightforward simple question to be put to the jury. It is readily intelligible.
Now we come to Clause 76. As proposed to be amended, it imports Byzantine complexity, albeit as a start that the Crown must establish beyond all reasonable doubt that the accused knew of one or perhaps all of the circumstances in Clause 76(2). If he did not and the Crown cannot prove that, the clause does not apply. There starts the problem, for, on this highly complex provision, the question then arises whether sufficient evidence has been adduced to raise the issue of consent. That is no mere matter of evidential presumption. It is a determinative factor of conviction or acquittal, and serves as an aid to conviction. It involves the putative injustice of erroneous conviction.
On that crucial issue, there will inevitably be submissions from the Bar on whether sufficient evidence has been adduced to raise the issue. Those will have to be heard, as the noble Baroness will agree from her experience, in the absence of the jury but in open court. If the judge rules that insufficient evidence has been adduced, when he comes to sum up he has in due course to direct the jury that, in the words of the amendment,
"the complainant is to be taken not to have consented".

675
He also has to direct the jury that the accused is to be taken as not to have believed that there was consent.
That is the mandatory, statutory duty of the judge under the clause. It is nothing more or less than a direction to convict. Surely, sufficiency of evidence on a charge laid under Clause 1(3) should be governed by Clause 1(3), not by extraneous provisions that strain the test in favour of conviction. Above all, surely it is not a matter for the judge to give a direction in law—that is a matter for the jury. It is a traditional function of the jury. The judge's jurisdiction in that regard is always, as the noble Baroness knows better than I do, to deal with a defence submission that there is no case to answer. There is no question of a judge having by statute to sum up for a direction. That is what Amendment No. 87 will entail, and that is why I oppose it.
There is very little else to say; I am sorry that I have taken so long. Evidential presumptions such as these in such circumstances should not be introduced to defeat the presumption of innocence, the overall burden of proof on the Crown and the traditional functions of the jury. I recognise that the amendments have been accepted in good faith by the noble Baroness or her predecessor and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. No doubt there have been negotiations on which I congratulate all concerned on having moved the Government so far in other directions. However, as I said on Report, this is my sticking point.
For the reasons that I have given, I ask the House to look at the matter objectively, and to look at the fine print and the consequences, one of which will be that the rulings of the judge will be subject to appeals against conviction on which retrial might be ordered. We are opening up a totally novel avenue, to no good cause and for no good reason other than as part of a compromise on a good deal. This part of the deal is not good. There is no reason why Clause 1(3) should require the assistance of implementation by implementing provisions of such an order that do not ride consistently with it. I hope that that is objective; I hope that at least it is a question worthy of noble Lords' examination in due course.
There is nothing else to say on the group of 15 amendments, to which we have to stick. Effectively, I have covered most of them, especially the important ones. I accept Amendment No. 1 and its sister amendments. I accept Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 to amend Clause 77. I would prefer not to have to deal with Amendment No. 94 now, because it is consequential on other amendments, especially Amendment No. 91. With the leave of the House, I would like to deal with that later and, in view of what I have said, when the time comes I would like to move Amendment. No. 2.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Cooke of Thorndon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, I rise to sound a partly wistful but nevertheless supportive note. Previously in the House, I gave support in the light of the experience of New Zealand to the inclusion of some objective
676
element in the defence of belief in consent when rape is charged. As the debate then developed, the House appeared to be in sympathy with that view. The then Minister tabled an amendment that would have made the criterion whether in all the circumstances, including any steps taken by person A to ascertain whether person B consents, A could reasonably be expected to doubt whether B consents.
In my respectful view, that was an inspired piece of drafting, focusing on what society could reasonably expect of the particular defendant, and harmonising with the decision of the majority of the Appellate Committee in the case of Morgan Smith on the cognate subject of provocation. Under that formulation, the jury would give the verdict on behalf of the community on what might be a difficult issue. I echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, said about the desirability of making it as clear as possible that the individual characteristics of the defendant—such as some degree of mental infirmity, properly proved—are to be taken into account. That was also echoed to some degree by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway.
The formula tabled by the former Minister might well have made Clauses 76 and 77 unnecessary, thus simplifying the legislation while conveying the important and simple message that this sort of intrusion is not to occur without a green light. In the event, the Minister never moved that amendment; nor has it been possible to explore the question with him, as the birth labour of a revolution took over. However, I recognise that in the amendments now proposed by the noble Baroness, the Government have moved considerably, and that at times simplicity and economy of drafting may have to yield to political expediency in the light of group pressures. It may be that only a small minority of cases would have any different result if the formula tabled but not moved were enacted.
There may not be a great deal of practical difference between what the Government now propose and what was at one stage proposed. Bearing that in mind, together with the apparent concord between the Front Benches, I propose to attempt no obstruction while joining in the hope for some clarification as to the intention of the House and preferably of Parliament as a whole on the question of taking characteristics—all reasonably relevant characteristics—into account.
Viscount Bledisloe: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Baroness two questions. First, I gather from her opening remarks that she assumes that, under her Amendment No. 1, the characteristics of the defendant can be taken into account. Can the noble Baroness explain how she gets that from the wording? Does she assume that "all the circumstances" include the characteristics? It is normally held that "circumstances" relate to the surrounding fact, and that "characteristics", which are something different, relate to the defendant. Alternatively, is it because the clause to be inserted specifically refers to "A"—namely, the defendant—arid it is from there that one

677
gets these characteristics? I see the noble Baroness nodding her head to indicate that my second answer describes her logic. I am grateful to her.
Secondly, on her Amendment No. 87, in relation to the need for the judge to rule whether there is sufficient evidence, the noble Baroness expressed in eulogistic terms her confidence in the ability of the judiciary to rule on this difficult matter. If that is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, why are they not equally prepared to rely—in similarly eulogistic terms—on the discretion of the judiciary in matters of sentencing?
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on taking on the Bill. I am delighted that she has missed the worst of it; we are now in relatively calm waters. However, I counsel her against using the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and the Terrorism Act as precedents. Both seek to limit the freedom of the individual for the benefit of the state. The House had to push back quite hard in that respect. I certainly remember the RIPA; and terrorism Acts in general have had that pattern to them. Any provision introduced in those Bills should not be regarded as a good precedent for bringing into civil legislation; such provisions generally relate to extraordinary circumstances, and involve measures of which one would wish to be careful.
I should like to ask the noble Baroness a couple of questions. The amendment refers to,
"any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents".
Am I right to presume that that consent must be continuous? Is it the case that the offence of rape can be committed if consent is withdrawn at any time during the act? Must not the consent be specific—thus consent to vaginal penetration is not consent to anal penetration? Therefore, if I, as a publisher, am to evolve a form that A can fill in at the time and have B sign, it ought to be in the form of an electronic record that can be continually updated, so as to provide adequate evidence for the clause drafted by the Minister.
In general, I am delighted with the change. It came, I think, from the drafting of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in Committee. I welcomed it then, and I am delighted to see it reflected in government amendments today.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I thank all those who have complimented me on taking up my new role, but particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and for her recognition of the sterling work done by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor and his excellent team of officials. I, too, should have far preferred that he, rather than I, stood before your Lordships this afternoon. It was ever thus. My only comfort is that I am at least singing the song of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford.
I turn to the concerns expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, and echoed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke, about characteristics.
678
They were also mentioned, I think, by the noble Viscount, Lord Bledisloe. My Lords, we fully expect that characteristics such as mental incapacity and extreme youth will be taken into account in line with the existing caselaw on such issues. We would not expect our courts to follow the New Zealand approach. We believe that we can rely principally on caselaw as regards reasonableness.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, commented on Clause 80(2), which provides that penetration is a continuing act, and therefore consent must continue throughout. The Bill seeks to underline that sexual intimacy must be consensual. Those who enter into it—in whatever form—must take steps to assure themselves that their partner in such activity is in full agreement to all that is transpiring. It would be wrong to say that assent to one activity can be properly construed as an assent to all activity. That is a distinction that we seek to draw. I therefore thank all those who have supported the compromise.
I see the attraction that the original formulation had for the noble and learned Lord, Lord Cooke. We saw the attraction ourselves, but we said that we would take it away for consideration and bring back a consensual set of amendments. We have now done that and the import of what we propose remains the same. There is no policy difference between the initial intention expressed in the amendment that was previously before the House, but not moved, and the amendment that is before us now.
I appreciate, too, the strong feelings expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, about the direction. The ways in which we have structured the provisions will show that fear not to be well founded. We are confident that the court will be alive to the concern that the noble Lord has expressed about the possibility of appeal and will not take injudicious account of issues that should properly not be admitted. I leave the comments made about sentencing to another day.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
4 p.m.
Lord Campbell of Allowayhad given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 18, leave out "Sections 76 and 77 apply" and insert "Section 77 applies"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on the advice of the Table, I cannot divide on the amendment, because it would leave out Clause 76, which is a substantive amendment on which I have to divide the House at a later stage. That being so, unless any other noble Lord wishes to speak on this matter, I am minded not to move the amendment for the reason that I have given.
[Amendment No. 2 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Assault by penetration]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, leave out lines 13 to 21 and insert—

"( ) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

679

( ) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 4 not moved.]
Clause 4 [Sexual assault]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, leave out lines 30 to 38 and insert—

"( ) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

( ) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 5 [Causing a person to engage in sexual activity without consent]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, leave out lines 11 to 19 and insert—

"( ) A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

( ) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 8 not moved.]
Clause 10 [Sexual activity with a child]:
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 9:
Page 5, line 8, after "indictment" insert—

(a) where subsection (3) applies, to imprisonment for life, and

(b) in any other case,"

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 10 to 14 and 25. All the amendments concern sentencing provisions where offences against children under 13 are involved.
Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 relate to Clause 10 and ensure that the maximum penalty for the sexual touching of a child under 13, where penetration is involved, is the same as that under Clauses 6 or 7; namely life. Clause 80(6)states:
"Touching … in particular includes touching amounting to penetration",
and it is quite possible that Clause 10 could be used to prosecute the sexual penetration of a child under 13. Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 relate to Clause 11 and align the maximum penalty for causing or inciting the penetration of a child under 13 with the penalty in that clause.
The aim of the amendments is to ensure that there can be no possibility that an offence involving penetration of a child under 13 ever picks up a lesser maximum sentence than life. Without the amendments, a prosecution may well, whether in error or for some other reason, be taken under the softer of the clauses. That should not be an option. The Minister's response on Report was that 14 years was enough if the wrong section had been used to prosecute the offence. We disagree with that.
680
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 are slightly different, although they are again directed at offences involving the under-13s. The amendments would remove the possibility of a summary conviction involving negligible penalties where an offence against a child under 13 was committed under Clauses 12 or 13; that is, engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child, or causing a child to watch a sexual act.
As I explained on Report, my motivation in introducing the amendments was to ensure that the Bill was internally consistent. The equivalent offences for those with a mental disorder are set out in Clauses 34 and 35. Those offences offer no option for summary proceedings. I remain mystified as to why the Government think that an offence against a child of 13, for whom no issue of consent will ever arise, could result in a lower penalty than the equivalent offence against a mentally disordered person who cannot in fact consent. The Minister did not answer that on Report.
Lastly, Amendment No. 25 deals with the grooming offence in Clause 17. It had been my contention at earlier stages of the Bill that the sexual grooming offence is a serious offence which should be triable only on indictment. The Government have not accepted that, which leads me to fear that the new offence will be used for marginal cases. In any event, if it can be proved that a person meets the requirements of Clause 17 in relation to a child under 13, that is a very grave matter. It should not be possible for such a person to be tried summarily because, by definition, it is a serious offence which merits a significant penalty. My amendment would achieve that for offences in relation to the under- 13s. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understand precisely the concerns that the noble Baroness has expressed by way of her amendments. The amendments deal only with those situations where the child victim was under 13. In the vast majority of offences against children aged under 13, we would envisage the non-consensual offences in Clauses 6, 7, 8 or 9 being charged. It will be in only exceptional circumstances that the offences in Clauses 10 or 11 are charged. That will be principally where it is only during the trial that evidence emerges that the child is aged under 13.
Increasing the maximum penalty to life for Clauses 10 and 11, where the victim is under 13 and penetration takes place, is consistent with the offences in Clauses 6, 7 and 9. However, doing so would raise questions about consistency with other offences in the Bill, which could be charged in cases involving penetration of or by a child under 13, albeit that that is very unlikely. We would have to consider, for example, the familial child sex offences, abuse of a position of trust and all the mental disorder offences. We need to take a careful look at all the offences to which this issue applies and at the best way of ensuring consistency throughout the Bill. We should also consider whether doing that might detract from our policy of ensuring that the specific under-13 offences are charged every time that a sexual offence is committed against a child of that young age.

681
I do not believe that the amendment will achieve the necessary consistency. Therefore, I would like to take the issue away and consider it in the context of the whole Bill. I very much regret that it has not been possible for us to do that before today.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 25 is to make the offences in Clauses 12, 13 and 17 triable on indictment only—the noble Baroness made that clear—where the victim was a child under the age of 13. Clause 12 makes it an offence for an adult aged 18 or over, for sexual gratification, to engage in sexual activity in the presence of a child. Clause 13 makes it an offence for an adult aged 18 or over, for sexual gratification, to cause a child to watch a sexual act.
Clause 17 makes it an offence for an adult aged 18 or over to meet or travel to a meeting with a child having communicated with that child, possibly in a non-sexual way on two previous occasions, with the intention of committing a sexual offence against the child either then or subsequently.
Although these offences will involve some extremely serious behaviour, it is possible to envisage other cases where this method of trial might not be required. Sexual activity includes things such as kissing or sexual fondling between people who are close. Where, for example, an 18 year-old, for the purpose of sexual gratification, shows a photograph of two people kissing or sexually fondling to a 12 year-old, we would not necessarily want that case to be triable on indictment only. It is right to retain flexibility about the mode of trial for these cases.
One of the sad things that we have had to recognise is that there is a multiplicity of ways in which offences can be created. They cover the whole spectrum from the most minor to the most serious. We have to retain a little flexibility. Last evening we were talking about another concept of making the punishment fit the crime. We need a slightly lighter touch in relation to those matters.
In Clause 17 the adult must intend to commit a sexual offence against a child and that offence could be any of those in Part 1 of the Bill, including, for example, the offences in Clauses 12 and 13. So where a young adult meets or travels to meet a 12 year-old, having communicated with her in a non-sexual way twice previously, in order to show her photographs of two people sexually fondling, it is conceivable that the case could be suitably dealt with at a magistrates' court.
Although I fully accept that in the majority of cases those committing any sexual offence against a child under the age of 13 should be tried in the Crown Court, I am reluctant to remove the option of summary trial for those which do not involve physical contact with the victim. For the reasons that I have given I resist these amendments.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down—although if she does not sit down I cannot speak—given the extreme complexity of the crimes which we are creating today, it seems relevant
682
to ask what action is going to be taken to enable people, particularly younger people and teenagers, to know about these crimes and to understand what they are allowed to do and what they are not. What seems clear to us does not always seem clear to people brought up against a different background of sexual behaviour.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, that is very much what the Government are trying to do in both education and health in order to inform young people as to what is appropriate and proper behaviour; how to keep themselves safe, and what is the norm. A number of my noble friends on the Front Bench have spoken of all those issues. Education and healthcare are going to be very important indeed. I also hope that your Lordships' proceedings will help to elucidate these issues and will be used to some good effect.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and in particular for saying that the amendments to Clauses 9 and 10 will be taken away and looked at. I was disappointed that on Clauses 12 and 13 the Minister did not address the point of consistency with the equivalent offence in relation to those with mental disorder in Clauses 34 and 35. I ask the noble Baroness to take that matter away as well and look at it again. It was not my purpose today to seek the opinion of the House, but to put again on the record these important issues. I hope that the Minister will include that in a thorough review of the offences involving under-13s.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am very happy to reassure the noble Baroness. I said that we would take the amendments away and consider the issue of consistency across the piece. I cannot guarantee that the result will be what she would wish, but we shall certainly think about it.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, on that basis I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 10 not moved.]
Clause 11 [Causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity]:
[Amendments Nos. 11 and 12 not moved.]
Clause 12 [Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child]:
[Amendment No. 13 not moved.]
Clause 13 [Causing a child to watch a sexual act]:
[Amendment No. 14 not moved.]
Clause 14 [Child sex offences committed by children or young persons]:
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 15:
Page 6, line 10, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (3),"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I add my congratulations to the Minister on her promotion and welcome her to our deliberations this afternoon, not

683
least because I believe that she may be bringing me some good news. I also associate these Benches with the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, about the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. It is because he and his officials have listened that I am expecting that good news today.
In moving this amendment I shall also speak to Amendment No. 16. The purpose of the amendment is to meet the Government's own wishes, as expressed by the Minister in Committee. He said,
"In those cases where sexual activity between minors is truly mutually agreed and there is nothing to suggest that the activity is in any way exploitative, we would not expect and would not want the full weight of the criminal law to be used against them".—[Official Report,, 1/4/03; col.1176.]
I understand that the Minister plans to undertake to translate that statement into guidance for the Crown Prosecution Service and others. While welcoming this commitment, unfortunately it will not totally meet the concerns about criminalising consenting sexual activity of under-16s expressed at all stages of the Bill.
On Report the Minister resisted an amendment to delete Clause 14, first, on the inaccurate grounds that this would prevent under-18 year-olds being prosecuted for the abuse of 13 to 15 year-olds. The objection was incorrect since the deletion of Clause 14 did not prevent a prosecution of under-18s for the straightforwardly abusive sexual assaults and sexual activity without consent offences under Clauses 1, 3, 5 and 7 of the Bill.
The only offences from which the Report stage amendment exempted under-18s were the relatively minor and obscure ones of inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child, and causing a child to watch a sexual act. However, in order to meet this objection this amendment now preserves these lesser offences for under-18s, but none the less ensures that consenting sexual activity between under-18s and 13 to 15 year-olds is not a criminal offence. In other words, there is the defence of consent.
The Minister may believe that guidance to the prosecution services will suffice, but unfortunately this is not the case. For a start, no government can fully control the police and prosecution services except by clear legislation which states what is, and what is not, a crime. While cases may be rare, there will undoubtedly be some unnecessary prosecution, perhaps as a result of parents laying complaints or police and CPS zeal for zero tolerance of child abuse.
More importantly, deciding not to prosecute may come far too late for children who have had their private lives investigated by strangers and have been accused of committing an offence. Their behaviour should not be a criminal offence in the first place. And how can it be right to create an offence which is not to be prosecuted? This seems a very bizarre form of government.
The Minister gave three other reasons at Report stage for refusing to decriminalise consensual sex between 13 to 15 year-olds and other young people. Those were, first, that although the act might appear
684
consensual it might not really be so, because the teenager had been coerced or exploited into having sex; secondly, that many children welcome the protection that is offered by an age of consent; and thirdly, that we have a duty to send teenagers the message that they must not have sex at an early age.
Taking those objections in turn, the first really does not hold water since, if there is any evidence that the teenager has been coerced or exploited into agreeing to sex then obviously she or he has not given a valid consent. But if there is no evidence of that, then plainly a prosecution should not occur. The second objection relates to the first, since it suggests that teenagers—particularly girls—are unable to give a valid refusal to sex and are having to rely on the criminal law to fend off boys' unwanted pressure. Surely the main point is that girls should be helped to feel strong about their sex lives and their bodies, and understand that they have a personal power whether to consent. A logical consequence of the Minister's argument is that 15 year-old girls will be unable to resist their boyfriends on their sixteenth birthday. In any event, the allegation that "many children" welcome consenting under-age sex being criminalised is often made, but rarely supported by quoted research. It appears to be one of those anecdotal "facts" that are often brandished in debate.
Some real research that can be quoted is, first, that the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles in Britain shows that a quarter of women and nearly a third of men in the current 16 to 44 age group had sexual intercourse under the age of 16 and that the average age for first sexual activity was 14 for girls and 13 for boys. So we are talking about the unlikely idea that children welcome the criminalisation, not of behaviour they might be faced with in the abstract, but of behaviour most of them are currently engaged in. Given the extent of sexual activity under the age of 16, we cannot be surprised by research published in 1999 in the British Journal of Family Planning on teenage attitudes which shows that, in fact, the law has very little impact indeed on their sexual behaviour.
There are two problems with the Minister's third objection, that decriminalising consenting sex sends the wrong message to under-16s because we want to discourage them from all forms of sexual activity. First, the criminal law is a very poor tool for affecting consenting sexual behaviour. One should look at how unsuccessful the criminal law was at stopping homosexuality. Secondly, criminalising teenage sex sends other harmful messages to teenagers.
First, it tells them that the criminal law is stupid. How can we ask young people to respect the law and at the same time tell them that two 15 year-olds having a grope is a criminal offence for which there is no defence? Secondly, the message is sent that adolescent sexual exploration, a perfectly natural thing, is wrong, bad and a matter for state intervention. The psychological damage that may do to healthy sexual development is incalculable, but profoundly important to the individuals concerned. Finally, it may make under-16s furtive about seeking help for the consequences of their sexual activities—in particular,

685
of course, preventing teenage pregnancies and combating the "epidemic" of sexually transmitted infection that we have been hearing about from the House of Commons Health Select Committee.
In short, this amendment seeks to help children by improving the Bill so that the law genuinely reflects their experiences and accurately states what is abusive, criminal and unacceptable behaviour. The Government hoped to modernise legislation in this area, but so far they are giving our teenagers a dangerously muddled and damaging law. I am most anxious to hear what the Minister has to say. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I have added my name to the amendments standing in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Warmsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, because I continue to believe that the criminalisation of consensual sexual activity among teenagers is bad. Those noble Lords who have seen the birthday cards of young people attaining their 16th birthdays, with many references to "it" now being legal, will know that in that age group the so-called age of consent is something of a joke. The activity criminalised by the Bill goes way beyond sexual intercourse and includes heavy petting and looking at dirty magazines, for example. We are not simply talking about the age of consent for sexual intercourse.
I support the thrust behind the amendment, which uses consent as a determining feature. But I also accept that there may be cases where the issue of consent is not clear cut; for example, where a young person is pressured to consent in some way. Whether those hard cases, which are not numerous when compared with the numbers involved in perfectly normal and healthy sexual activity, should drive the form of the law is a moot point. I know where I would place the balance, but the Government have different ideas.
From discussions with the Minister's officials I understand that much work has been going on to establish how guidance can be given to those involved in enforcing the law at the various stages, including the final warning scheme, which I had not heard of until last week, but details of which the Minister's officials have kindly sent to me. I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say on the way in which guidance will be given so that normal teenage sexual activity is not pursued in the courts. I hope that the Minister will answer four areas of concern. What will the guidance contain? When will it be given and to whom? What consultation will be conducted before the guidance is given? Will the guidance be publicly available?
I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us on those points.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I fear I disagree with both noble Baronesses. Under Clause 10 someone of just over 18 who kisses or engages in what used to be called light petting with a boy or girl of, say, 15 and three-quarters, can be sentenced to 14 years' imprisonment, even though the activity is consensual—indeed, it may have been initiated by the younger person—and the
686
age difference is only two and a quarter years. That worries me but not the Liberal Democrat Benches. If I am mistaken, I apologise.
The proposal is that someone just under 18 may not only kiss, but indulge in full sexual intercourse with another person of just over 13 without any penalty at all—although the age difference is as much as four and three-quarter years. That is inconsistent and anomalous. If something is wicked when committed by a person of 18 years and one month, it must be equally wicked when committed by someone of 17 years and 11 months. Equally, if the activity is harmless when committed by someone of just under 18 it must be harmless when committed by someone of just over 18. Clause 10 goes too far in many respects, but the amendment goes in the opposite direction of being excessively permissive.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, referred to the inconsistency of what sentencing would be if the amendments were accepted. Talking about petting and normal teenage coming together and forming relationships trivialises the reason for having an age of consent at all. Let us make no mistake, the amendments sweep away and invalidate almost completely the notion of an age of consent.
It is no good either my party or the Government wringing their hands about promiscuity among young people, as they do, especially about young people from the age of 11 up to the age of consent at 16, wondering what we are going to do and throwing billions of pounds at all sorts of task forces, quangos and organisations to discourage that type of behaviour when we sit in Parliament and pass laws which state. "If you want to do that it is entirely natural. We shall produce guidelines about how you can do it but one thing we will not do is to take a view that it is wrong."
Parents will be in despair about what is being said today. Certainly, young people will be very confused about the messages. I suggest that they will be more confused as a result of the amendments rather than less confused. If the Government are minded to accept the amendments, young people will be told in effect that the Government take the view that, frankly, the age of consent is immaterial and does not really matter; therefore why bother with it.
One of my technical questions to the Minister is to ask what would be the status of the age of consent should the amendments be accepted. They would be contradictory on the statute book, so it would be important to know what they mean. The amendments will send the wrong messages. We should be very concerned about early sexual activity. There are ways of dealing with that. No one has brought an example to this House of the police taking action against two young people who are not having sexual intercourse but are engaging in what is called teenage petting, the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and taking that to court as an offence. That simply does not happen. However, there needs to be protection for young people.

687
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, referred to coercion. She did not exactly use the phrase, "a figment of the imagination", but there is such a thing as coercion among young people. Some girls feel very pressured about such things. Often, they do not want that pressure. Having the age of consent in place would be something they could sometimes use as one of the shots in their armoury to help them to say "no". I agree with the noble Baroness that we must help young people to make proper choices about whether or not they engage in sex. But it is better to err on the side of saying, "It is better not to engage in sex under the age of 18 than simply to go along with it". There is a whole issue of messages. This is a message I would not want to be a party to sending to young people and their parents.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I very much regret that I was not in my place for the start of the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. However, she and I discussed this issue and I am sure that I understand the points she wants to make. I have considerable sympathy for the amendments, for the reasons which she and the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, clearly made.
I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, would agree that at earlier stages of the Bill we agreed all round the House that on the whole we regretted the explosion of very early sexual activity among young teenagers. I hope that she would not characterise that as wringing our hands. At earlier stages of the Bill, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, the predecessor to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, referred to the fact that he thought—I would go a long way towards agreeing with him—that social welfare agencies and, indeed, guidance, were a more appropriate way to deal with many of the issues to which everyone who has spoken earlier in the debate has referred, and with whom I would agree.
I look forward very much to the reply by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and welcome her very much to this responsibility which I am sure she will deal with enormously sympathetically. However, as I said at Second Reading and in Committee, I continue to feel that it would be difficult for many of us who have been concerned with these issues for a very long time to accept that however strong the guidance and however appropriate the work of the social welfare agencies in dealing with the wider social and educational problems of very early teenage sex, we would be unhappy to see this whole issue residing anywhere in the criminal justice system.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, this is one of those very rare occasions on which I entirely agree with the remarks of the noble Baroness. It seems to me to be an example of one of the consequences of moving so far to make rape and other sexual offences so heavily punished and so widely drawn in dealing with ills with which we wish to deal in the adult population that we quail when we look at the consequences of the changes we have made in dealing with the young.
688
We really cannot have our cake and eat it. If we are to move so far in these offences that we dare not prosecute a 17 year-old who is having sex with a 14 year-old, there is much argument in favour of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for saying that that should not be a crime. But then, as my noble friend Lady Blatch said, we would no longer have an age of consent. The alternative is to allow the question of whether or not someone should be prosecuted to be entirely an administrative decision, to have law not made by Parliament but just a blanket authority given by Parliament as to whether or not people should be prosecuted and for it to be recognised that this is entirely within the purview of the executive and its administrative parts. I believe that that is an extremely dangerous way to proceed.
Accepting that we are going where we are with the Bill, which I think in the long term will turn out to he a blind alley in terms of making sexual offences so heavily punished that it really becomes quite difficult to convict ordinary malefactors for them, if we want to spare our young from the consequences of moving in that direction I should like to see us making it explicit that there are lighter sentences and lighter conditions on the young if they trespass but not going as far as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, proposes and making such matters not crimes at all. If we do that we lose the age of consent. The concept of the age of 16 is a great defence to those under 16s who wish not to be involved in particular in full sexual activity. If we abandon that, as the amendment proposes, we will do our young a great disservice.
Those who wish to indulge in sexual activity under that age doubtless will continue to do so. Those who do not will feel a lot safer if the age of consent were to remain unbreached.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, perhaps I may say, briefly, how much I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, and that I support the compromise he suggests.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hope that I shall be able to give pleasure to both sides of the argument, which is a very unusual and happy position in which to hope to be. I warmly thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, for her compliments and my noble friend Lady Jay, who it gives me great delight to see sitting on the Privy Counsellors' Bench for this debate.
Perhaps I may say straightaway that I hope I shall be able to fulfil the expectation of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, as regards guidance. I am confident that it was her persuasive voice, along with a number of others, which led to clarification of the guidance. I need to be quite firm that the age of consent has meaning, as the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, requested, and provides a very helpful indication of what is and is not appropriate and acceptable behaviour.
The effect of Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 is that a person aged under 18 would not commit one of the child sex offences in Clauses 9 to 13 if he engaged in

689
what he reasonably believed to be consensual activity with a person aged 13 or over but under 16. Although the amendments refer to Clauses 9 to 13, I assume that what is intended is that the exception should apply to Clauses 10 to 13 as Clause 9 deals only with victims under the age of 13.
The effect of the amendment would be to undermine the protection in law that the age of consent offers children. Setting the Boundaries, the report of the review of sexual offences, looked at the age of consent and concluded that it was,
"well established, well understood and well supported",
and that as a result there should be no change to it.
The age of consent is a simple concept. We will weaken it and the protection it gives if we remove it, even for two young people together, or try to draw artificial distinctions between conduct which is or is not covered by it. As we have said, there is a huge range of sexual behaviour, from sexual kissing through masturbation to penetration. It is not sensible to try to prescribe a sexual code based on an age of consent.
While it is widely held that a sexual relationship is far more likely to be abusive if the age gap between the two parties is significant—for example, between a 15 year-old and a 40 year-old adult—the bottom line is that adults do not have a monopoly on child abuse and we cannot assume that sexual relationships between young people will be fully consensual just because they are the same age. We know that other children often abuse children, and the law must be able to protect them. It is a tragedy that children who are abused and have themselves been abused at a tender age have a higher propensity to become abusers themselves. It is something that we have to accept and seek to address.
The underlying assumption in the amendment is that the non-consensual offences of rape, assault by penetration, and sexual assault will deal with all of those situations where there is lack of consent to sexual activity between teenagers. So why are we criminalising acts that are consensual?
The review of sex offences heard evidence that children can and do behave in a sexually abusive way towards other children. There can be subtle or even blatant pressure or bullying—but stopping short of coercion—which secures the consent of the child to sex. Sometimes, even where there is an element of coercion, the child continues to believe that the other person genuinely cares for her and she will not give evidence against him. There are therefore cases of behaviour which all would agree were abusive but for which a non-consensual offence cannot be proved. It is for those reasons that we need Clause 14.
We accept, however, that genuinely mutually agreed, non-exploitative sexual activity between teenagers does take place and, in many instances, no harm comes from it. It is therefore important that we ensure that these children do not end up being prosecuted or issued with a reprimand or final warning, and we will introduce additional safeguards to ensure that this is not the case. We will therefore be amending guidance to the police in relation to their use
690
of reprimands, as has been foreshadowed by both the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Noakes. It will make sure that the reprimands and final warnings are not issued when it is clearly not in the public interest to do so. This will be reflected in the criteria used to determine the most appropriate response to an allegation, where it will be made clear that, for example, lack of coercion or the fact that the two children were close in age would be taken into account as mitigating factors.
The guidance to be issued by the Director of Public Prosecutions to custody officers under the provisions of the Criminal Justice Bill will provide that the decision whether children under 18 should be charged with child sex offences will be reserved for Crown prosecutors rather than the police. The Crown Prosecution Service will be issuing guidance to its prosecutors about which factors should be taken into account when making such decisions. The type of factors to be considered would include the relevant ages of the parties; the emotional maturity of the parties and whether they entered into a sexual relationship willingly; any coercion or corruption by a person and the relationship between the parties; and whether there was any existence of a duty of care or breach of trust.
This is a difficult and sensitive area in which the views of well-informed people of good intention are genuinely divided. We believe that we have struck the right and sensible balance between acknowledging that consensual sexual activity may take place between children under the age of 16 while, at the same time, protecting all our children from sexual abuse.
The noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, asked me some specific questions which I would like to answer. She asked "When?" as far as the guidance is concerned. We will seek to ensure that the guidance is prepared and coincides with the commencement of the Bill's provisions. As to consultation, we will discuss these matters with the police and the Crown Prosecution Service. The noble Baroness will know that the current guidance is not in the public domain. We will look at these issues, but I certainly cannot give the noble Baroness any guarantee that there will be a change in practice.
What is important is that we effect appropriate control on the ground, that these issues are dealt with sensitively and well, and that the fears which have been expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Lucas, Lord Monson and others, are properly taken into account. We believe that the balance is about right and we invite the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to withdraw her amendment—having, I hope, succeeded in giving her the good news she sought.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, would she not agree that there could be a most bizarre and unintended consequence if this amendment were to be accepted?

691
If it were accepted, then someone of 17 could sleep with someone of 13, week after week, month after month, perfectly legally hut, the moment the older party reached the age of 18, he or she would become a criminal and be subject to 14 years' imprisonment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, can the noble Baroness clarify this matter of reprimand and final warning? I admit to being in ignorance about it. If someone is issued with one, do they have a way of clearing that from their record? Do such things have any consequence when it comes to notification or any of the other ramifications of criminal records, in relation to employment in later years?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, they should not have a consequence for employment in later years. We have a very helpful document which sets out the way in which it all fits together. I am sure that it would be of great assistance to the House, and I will seek to ensure that a similar document to that which the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, currently holds in her hand is put into the Library.
In the most appropriate cases—let us talk about two 13 year-olds kissing. where a parent finds it objectionable that her 13 year-old daughter happens to be found kissing some other person and wants to take action about it—there is provision for there to be no final warning but that the matter should just be raised and dealt with appropriately. We think that that light touch would be very successful in dealing with such issues.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her reply and for the changes that are to be made. They are most welcome and do move us in the right direction. I also thank her officials, who have been most helpful in this regard, particularly in supplying me with a copy of the document on final warnings.
Turning to some of the points which have just been made, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, feels that Clause 10 goes too far. He may well be right, but in fact my amendments are to Clause 14. In that regard he talked about penalties for these offences. I am not suggesting that nothing is done, but I believe that the criminal law is a clumsy tool in respect of these sensitive issues relating to young people, who are exploring towards adulthood. I believe that other ways are more appropriate, as the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I believe that coercion is covered by other parts of the Bill. I am not suggesting that the age of consent has no meaning, but I believe that the penalties outlined in Clauses 9 to 13 are not appropriate for the sort of consensual behaviour we are talking about. As the noble Baroness, Lady Jay, said, counselling, information and guidance are a much better approach.
The Minister referred in a number of her comments to abuse. We are not talking about abuse here. We are talking about consensual, exploratory activity. Bullying is coercion, in my book, and I believe that other clauses cover it.
692
However, I am most glad that we have moved in the right direction. I believe that it is about as far as we can get. I am grateful to the Minister for her comments on what is to be done. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 16 not moved.]
Clause 15 [Arranging or facilitating commission of a child sex offence]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 17:
Page 6, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) he is not subject to the notification requirements of Part 2 of this Act or to any order made under that Part, and"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 81 and 85. The first time that I intended to speak today was on my own amendments. My intervention on the previous group of amendments was unplanned. I was not quick enough on my feet to welcome most warmly the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, to her post and to congratulate her on her promotion, as I had intended. I know that we will enjoy most informed debates with her representing the Home Office on the Front Bench. I also pay my compliments to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who has shepherded us through the Bill so far.
Clauses 15 and 74 were amended in Committee to provide a defence to child sex offence charges to those who claim to be acting to protect a child from sexually transmitted infection or physical harm or to prevent pregnancy. Amendments Nos. 17, 81 and 85 are a pared down version of the amendments to which I spoke on Report to limit the defence.
I regard the defence as unnecessary and dangerous. I rehearsed examples, reported in Hansard at col. 1110 on 2nd June, of child sex abusers who hid behind the claim that they were providing sex education. Over-sensitivity to complaints from the sex education industry has led the Government to create a defence that I continue to regard as a paedophile's charter.
I have disagreed consistently with those who have attempted to widen the defence yet further. I am disappointed that the Government are now going along with it. Amendments Nos. 19 and 20, which will be debated in the next group, will allow people to get off charges of facilitating child sex abuse if they can raise a claim that they were acting to protect the child's emotional well-being—whatever that means.
Given the very strong criticisms that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made of the proposal only two weeks ago—I will come to them in a moment—I am astonished. I said on both previous occasions when we debated the issue that no one has adduced any examples of respectable sex education professionals being prosecuted simply for helping young people. None of the agony aunts and advisers who apparently want the defence has been unjustly prosecuted. There is no evidence of any problem.
I said that making a law when there were no examples of the problem it was intended to tackle was dangerous. The noble and learned Lord,

693
Lord Falconer, rejected that contention. So imagine my surprise when the noble and learned Lord rejected an amendment tabled by my noble friend stating,
"there is a great danger in making offences extend to areas where there is no evidence of a real problem".—[Official Report,, 2/6/03; col. 1138].
I would say that there is a great danger of making defences extend to areas where there is no evidence of a real problem.
I also argued against the defence by saying that paedophiles would rely on it to seek to excuse themselves from child sex offences. I raised that argument on the first day of Report, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, rejected it. Yet, on the very next group of amendments, when my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, sought to extend the defence to cover emotional well-being, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said:
"It would create a potential loophole that abusers could exploit".
He went on to say that it could,
"potentially weaken the protection offered to children".
He also said,
"I believe that we would end up with this becoming a major focus for criminal proceedings … because it would become 'the issue' upon which defendants would rely. We would regret that outcome".—[Official Report,, 2/6/03; cols. 1135–36].
I could hardly believe what I was hearing. It was almost as though the noble and learned Lord had plagiarised my earlier speeches, as those were precisely the concerns that I have about the defence. So what has changed?
I am now even more incredulous, because those words have been forgotten and the Government are now embracing the concept of extending the defence to cover emotional well-being, again without any definition of the term. I would welcome a definition when the amendments are spoken to.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, realised that the noble and learned Lord was guilty of double standards when she said that extending the defence to cover emotional well-being would not makes things any worse:
"Someone could try to defend himself from a charge of 'inappropriate activity' by suggesting that he wanted to protect the child from sexually-transmitted infection by talking to the child regarding how he or she could have sex wearing a condom. In exactly the same way, a paedophile who was up to no good could also try to use that defence. Yet the noble and learned Lord seems to be perfectly happy with paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)".—[Official Report,, 2/6/03; col. 1137].
The final sentence refers to the defence as drafted.
I greatly regret that the defence will remain in the Bill. I still cling to the hope that we can at least insert one common-sense exception. I hope that my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, agree. Clearly, a sex offender should never be able to escape a conviction of facilitating a child sex offence or aiding and abetting child sex offences by simply claiming that he is some sort of freelance sex education adviser. I cannot envisage any situation where a registered sex offender has any right to be involved in giving intimate
694
sexual advice to children. Whether he has been convicted of child sex offences or a sex offence against an adult, he should not be going around giving sex advice to children and then being allowed a defence on a plate from the next group of amendments.
My amendment, therefore, excludes from the defence individuals who are subject to the notification requirements under Part 2 of the Bill. The previous version of my amendment would have excluded such people for life; however, this version operates only while they remain on the register. The amendment also excludes from the defence those who are subject to a risk of sexual harm order, foreign travel order or sex offences prevention order under Part 2.
I know that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, spoke during the previous debate about the Criminal Justice Bill and how it could address disclosure of previous convictions. However, the Government have allowed the new defence to be inserted into this Bill; therefore, this Bill is the place for ensuring that it cannot be abused by sex offenders. The Bill containing the provisions for registration of sex offenders and various preventative orders that can be used against them is the place for ensuring that such people cannot make a mockery of the system by relying on those defences to excuse their activity. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I entirely support my noble friend's amendment. I do not come at all from the same direction as she does in her arguments, particularly as I shall support some of the amendments in the next group, but I very much agree with her that there is absolutely no reason why the sort of trespasses on the principle of the Bill that are allowed by the Bill as drafted and would be allowed by the next group of amendments—for the very good reason of allowing the ordinary comforting and advice that should be available to children—should ever be open to someone on the sex offenders' register.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I have been quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, so I feel that I should respond to the amendment. I am afraid that I do not support it, as I think that it is unnecessary. For the same reason that I do not think that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of subsection (3) provide a paedophiles' charter, I do not think that proposed paragraph (d)—we will come to it in a moment—does. There is one simple reason for that. Lines 35 and 36 at the end of subsection (3) say,
"and not for the purpose of causing or encouraging the activity constituting the offence within subsection (1)(b) or the child's participation in it".
Those two lines make it almost unbelievable that a former sexual offender who was giving advice to a child, even under any of the proposed exemptions, could get away with such a defence. Those two lines would protect the child from any untoward activity.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I would support the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, were it not for the fact that my understanding—I am sure that the

695
noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, will clarify this point—is that any Schedule 1 offender would not be allowed to work with children, and that by giving such advice he would actually be committing an offence under employment regulations. Therefore, the amendment is not necessary, because it is simply not allowed.
5 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I respectfully agree in relation to those matters. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, for her warm compliments.
The purpose of Amendments Nos. 17, 81 and 85 is to ensure that the exception that we have introduced to protect those acting to protect the physical safety of the child, or to protect him or her from pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection, shall not apply if the accused is a registered sex offender or the subject of an order designed to prevent sexual harm.
We know why the noble Baroness is so concerned about that, and this is a matter that should exercise attention. There is no dispute between us as to the import of the concern that the noble Baroness has set out. None of us wants the exception to provide a loophole for abuse. We have drafted it carefully so as to avoid that possibility.
Although the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has fashioned her amendment and expressed it slightly differently, it is very similar to one that she proposed on Report. to exclude from it those who were once, but are no longer, subject to registration requirements or to an order designed to prevent sexual harm. I still do not believe that the amendments proposed are the right way of ensuring protection for the child.
First, they focus on a class of individuals defined by what they have done previously rather than on the purpose for which an individual is acting in a given situation with a real child. Secondly, the class of individuals would include those who have committed sexual offences that did not in any way involve a child. It is not a prerequisite for registration or for any of the orders, save the foreign travel order, that the subject must have a conviction for a child sex offence.
It is better for the court to deal with the particular circumstances before it and, where it is raised as an issue, take a view based on the available evidence of whether the defendant was acting to protect a child, or was rather acting so as to cause or encourage a sexual offence involving a child.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, was right in the comments she made about the exception, but I think that the noble Baroness was talking about those cases where the individual was in employment. In that regard, she is absolutely right. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, may be concerned about persons giving advice to a child on their own. That is why I will address my comments to that end.
Provisions in the Criminal Justice Bill that was introduced here yesterday are also relevant to this issue. If someone previously convicted of sexual offences against a child were charged with a new sexual
696
offence involving a child, it would not, under existing law, generally be possible to refer to the previous convictions in the trial for the new allegation.
However, proposals in the Criminal Justice Bill would make such evidence available to the court in a wider range of circumstances. Therefore the court, when considering whether the exception applies, would be able to consider this matter, where relevant, taking into account those previous convictions.
We have taken great care in the drafting of the exception not to open a loophole for abuse, and we believe that we have successfully done this. However, we are certainly not complacent. It may be sensible to exclude from the scope of the exception those who do not go so far as causing or encouraging a sex offence involving a child, but who may derive sexual gratification from simply talking to a child about sexual matters.
In some cases, this may be difficult to prove, but there may be other cases in which evidence as to this motive is available. We will actively be considering in another place whether the exception should be broadened to exclude those who act for sexual gratification.
I do not believe that the amendments tabled are the most appropriate way of addressing this issue and I must, therefore, resist them. I invite the noble Baroness to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland of Asthal, was right about what the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, said. It covers lots of people who do not have a formal job such as teaching or social work. All sorts of other people can claim to be educating a child, especially if we go down the road indicated by the next group of amendments. They could be addressing the child's emotional well-being, confusion about sexuality or whatever. It is much wider than that.
I am deeply depressed by the response to the amendment, except for that of my noble friend Lord Lucas, who gave his support. It defies belief that somebody on a sex offending register could he allowed a defence by simply claiming to be dealing with a child's emotional well-being or with the education of a child, even in a one-to-one relationship.
In education, one need only think of Connexions. Surprisingly, even the parents of young people below the age of 16 are not allowed to know what the relationship is between an adult mentor and their child. They are not allowed to know who the mentor is or even to know that the child has a mentor. As it is couched, the law allows the mentor to get up close and personal to a young person, without the parents knowing anything about it. It is probable that such people could be engaged in dealing with drugs. sex and sexuality. In that situation, young people would be very exposed, if somebody got into the Connexions field. I have done a little detective work on how people become mentors. Given the number of mentors being employed, it will not be long before a paedophile is

697
engaged as a Connexions mentor. It would be interesting to know where culpability would lie in that situation.
I am deeply depressed by the response, and I seek the opinion of the House.
5.8 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 17) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 72; Not-Contents, 192.

Division No. 2

CONTENTS

Alton of Liverpool. L.

Knight of Collingtree, B

Ashcroft, L.

Lang of Monkton, L.

Astor of Hever. L.

Lawson of Blaby, L.

Blackburn, Bp.

Lucas, L.

Blatch, B. [Teller]

Luke, L.

Bridgeman. V.

Lyell, L.

Brooke of Sutton Mandeville. L.

Marlesford, L.

Buscombe. B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Carlisle of Buck low, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

CarnegyofLour. B.

Miller of Hendon, B. [Teller]

Colwyn, L.

Noakes, B.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Denham, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Dixon-Smith, L.

O'Neill of Bengarve, B.

Elton, L.

Onslow, E.

Fookes, B.

Park of Monmouth, B.

Fowler, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Freyberg, L.

Powell of Bayswater, L.

Gardner of Parkes. B.

Rees, L.

Geddes, L.

Renton. L.

Goschen, V.

Roberts of Conwy. L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Rogan, L.

Greenway, L.

St John of Fawsley, L.

Seccombe, B.

Griffiths of Fforestfach, L

Selsdon, L.

Hanham, B.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Harris of Peckham, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Skidelsky, L.

Howe, E.

Stewartby, L.

Howeof Aberavon, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Tebbit, L.

Hylton, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Jopling, L.

Ullswater. V.

Kimball, L.

Waddington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Clinton-Davis, L.

Addinglon. L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Ahmed, L.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Alii, L.

Crawley, B.

Amos, B.

David, B.

Andrews, B.

Davies of Coity, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Ashton of Upholland. B.

Desai, L.

Avebury, L.

Dixon, L.

Barker. B.

Donoughue, L.

Barnett, L.

Dormand of Easigton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Dubs, L.

Berkeley, L.

Elder, L.

Blackstone, B.

Evans of Parkside, L.

Borrie, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Bragg, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Brennan, L.

Falkland, V.

Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Brookman, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

Filkin, L.

Burlison, L.

Gale. B.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Carter. L.

Golding, B.

Chan, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Christopher. L.

Goodhart, L.

728

Gordon of Strathblane, L,

Paul, L.

Goudie, B.

Pendry, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Perry of Walton, L.

Greengross, B.

Peston, L.

Grocott, L.[Teller]

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Hamwee, B.

Pitkeathley, B.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Harris of Haringey, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Harrison, L.

Redesdale, L.

Haskel, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Haskins, L.

Rennard, L.

Hayman, B.

Richard, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L

Holme of Cheltenham, L.

Rooker, L.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Roper, L.

Hoyle, L.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Sawyer, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Jay of Paddington, B.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Jones, L.

Simon, V.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Stallard, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Levy, L.

Symons of VernhamDean, B.

Lipsey, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Livsey of Talgarth, L.

Temple-Morris, L.

Lockwood, B.

Thomas of Gresford, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Thomas of Wallis wood. B.

McCarthy, L.

Thornton, B.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Tordoff, L.

Mclntosh of Haringey, L.

Turnberg, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Walker of Doncaster, L

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Maddock, B.

Walmsley, B.

MarandKellie, E.

Walpole, L.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Warner, L.

Mitchell, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe. B.

Monson, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Morris of Aberavon, L.

Whitaker, B.

Newby, L.

Whitty, L.

Nicol, B.

Wigoder, L.

Northover, B.

Wilkins, B.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord Privy Seat)

Orme, L.

Parekh, L.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

On Question, amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
5.20 p.m.
Baroness Walmsleymoved Amendment No. 18:
Page 6, line 31, at end insert "(including but not limited to)"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 18, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 and the rest of the amendments in this group. I welcome government Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 83 and 84. They go a long way towards achieving what we want. Therefore, I shall not press my amendments.
There is clearly a great need for advice about the emotional side of sexual relations and the pressures that young people feel about them. Agony aunts in teenage magazines, counsellors at the end of a telephone helpline, teachers and other youth workers provide services which are highly valued by young people. A question poll on the CosmoGIRL website a few days ago produced the following results. The question was: "If you have a question about sex who would you turn to?". The result was that 3 per cent responded that they would turn to a doctor or Brook Centre; 79 per cent responded that they would turn to a magazine agony aunt; and 18 per cent responded that they would turn to their parents.
I should like to quote from two of many letters received by these magazines. Thanking a magazine for printing an article about a teenage mother, one girl wrote:
"Thanks a lot for printing [the article]. I showed it to my friend who had recently been pressurised into having unprotected sex with her boyfriend. She has now broken up with him after she had the strength to say no. I was so thankful after reading this article. I am so proud of her".
That letter was written by a 15 year-old.
The second letter said:
"Dear Bliss
I am writing to tell you how much I love your magazine. I am really shy and always feel embarrassed when my friends talk about sex and use slang words because I don't know what they mean.
Please print my letter and tell me what oral sex is (but please don't print my name)".
That was written by a 14 year-old.
Those letters speak for themselves. Parents and doctors are highly desirable as confidants for young people but, for many reasons of their own, young people do not always choose to use them as such. I should therefore like to take the opportunity of making three brief points. First, this is the first time that the law has attempted to make talking to children a criminal offence. There have been several references to the Gillick case during the course of this Bill. The Gillick case was not about advice, it was about
700
treatment—in other words, physical touching which, without proper consent, could be held in law to be an assault.
Under Article 10 of the Human Rights Act, children have a right to,
"receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority".
While it is difficult to think what advice and information might not now be covered by the exemptions of Clause 15 as, it is to be hoped, amended today, if a prosecution or a civil action was ever launched about, say, a certain style of sex education, the Government should acknowledge that Article 10 overrides the narrow prescriptiveness of this clause.
Secondly, to make a more general point, the clause demonstrates the Bill's obsessive tunnel vision on child abuse which fails to take in the wider picture of normal adolescent behaviour and ordinary society. For the sake of prosecuting an adult for talking in an inappropriate way to a minor—just talking, not grooming or inciting or touching, which are all separate offences already—the Government were, until this late stage, happy to jeopardise the work of hundreds of thousands of counsellors, advisers, teachers and parents who are all making the difficult process of growing up easier for our children.
Frankly, it beggars belief that anyone will now be prosecuted by the police under this clause. What was far more likely before the Government came around to the point of view expressed by these Benches and others—and could still just happen—was that one of the so-called "family" organisations would have tried to launch a civil action—a Gillick rematch, as it were. Do the Government really want this? I hope that today we shall do enough to avoid that.
Finally, the Government's amendment still remains a hostage to fortune because it is so prescriptively framed. For example, subsection (3)(c) permits assistance which prevents a child becoming pregnant. It assumes that the "child" in question is a girl under 16 years-old. Suppose, as is not unheard of, the "child" is a boy under 16 who is seeking contraceptive advice because he is having sex with an older girl. Strictly speaking no one could help him with his problem because his girlfriend is not a child who is in danger of pregnancy. I am afraid that the clause was written so prescriptively because the Government were paranoid about not allowing "loopholes" for child abusers, although in practice such possible loopholes can be found wherever one looks. Just because a child abuser might try to use a loophole does not mean that he will escape prosecution. Surely it would have been much wiser to have accepted our earlier suggestions which made a general, commonsense declaration that advice and assistance which was in the child's best interests would not be an offence.
However, I do not wish to appear ungracious. I welcome the Government's amendments. I shall be supporting them. As I said, I shall not press my

701
amendments, but I look forward to hearing the Minister's assurances to those bona fide people who help young people. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, my name is added to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, but I am happy to support the amendments tabled by the Government. I should like to say how pleased I am that the Government have listened and responded on this difficult area.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I, too, should like to say how much I welcome Amendments Nos. 19 and 20 tabled in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. We have come a long way in this discussion during the course of the Bill, as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said on her previous group of amendments. It is very welcome that the phrase, "emotional well-being" is also in the Bill as well as the more practical parts of clinical and other professional advice which were added in a government amendment at an earlier stage. I welcome this group of government amendments.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I, too, welcome the amendments. But I wondered why only "emotional well-being". Is not physical well-being also important? It is not entirely covered by the others, if I may say so. Perhaps I should leave it at that.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, while I prefer the wording of the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, I, too, am pleased to accept the alternative tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland. On behalf of the counsellors of Child Line, who felt themselves to be somewhat at risk from the previous position, I am immensely grateful.
However, perhaps I may add a couple of comments. I listened very carefully to what the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, said about paedophile charters. While I think that the Criminal Justice Bill and other measures will help close any gap, it is crucial that guidance ensures that anyone giving this kind of advice is supervised or works in an organisation where he or she is monitored. That may go some way to meeting the concerns which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, rightly puts before the House. It is extremely dangerous for people—just out of their own heads—to give advice to young people. That is not only because it can lead to dangerous behaviour, but also because it can be inappropriate and unhelpful. Therefore, I hope that the guidance will have appropriate caveats about organisations and supervision.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, we seem to have a choice between the formulation of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the government amendment on page 6, line 34 of the Bill. I should like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that her amendment is essentially negative, while the government amendment is essentially positive. I prefer the positive approach.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, as I said earlier, there is a read across between these amendments and those that I lost a moment ago. The Bill, as amended, would allow those on the sex offenders register alleged to have facilitated a sexual act to use the defence of addressing the emotional well-being of or simply educating a young person. In view of the fact that someone on the sex offenders register could be involved in that kind of work, I find this group of amendments deeply distressing.
The noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, helpfully referred to monitoring. One could include monitoring in training. However, we are talking about situations in which young people may be in one-to-one relationships well away from their parents, peers, school classrooms or youth clubs, which may lead to opportunistic activity. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, will know that people take advantage of the moment at which young people display their anxieties about something. In those circumstances, the process of monitoring would be very difficult.
For the record, I should say that Mrs Gillick has been much maligned in the course of our debates on this Bill. The issue at stake for Mrs Gillick, whom I supported, related to the legal role and status of a parent of children under 16. My heart goes out to all parents who try very hard to bring up their children not to engage in under-age sex, to do the right thing, to live a healthy life and to have emotional well being, when someone comes along and legally undermines their roles as parents. That is what happened in the case of Victoria Gillick. She went to court to fight for the right of parents to be responsible and, if anything went wrong, culpable, for their own children; she lost. Perhaps some who have been active on this Bill would not be sorry about that. However, it is important to say for the record that the reason Victoria Gillick went to court was not as the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, described it.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have tabled an amendment in this group, which supports Amendment No. 18 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley.
When we discussed the previous group of amendments, the Minister, rejecting my noble friend's amendments, said that we should be comforted by our confidence in the ability of the courts to decide whether a particular person has acted in the interests of protecting a child or has sought to cause and encourage the commission of an offence. However, in the same clause, the Minister presents an exclusive list of the ways in which children may be protected, rather than relying on the courts to judge whether any particular set of actions constitutes protecting or encouraging the commission of an offence against a child. By going down the route of an exclusive list, we are in considerable danger of allowing the prosecution of someone acting in the interests of the child, and therefore protecting the child, but who does not come within the list of the proposed four subjects.

703
The fact that we are having a Third Reading of the Bill suggests that that is likely to be the case. We have stumbled on the fourth point and have rescued it just in time; the ball has been caught just before it has hit the ground. But what about the next ball, which we have not seen coming, about which we do not know, which has not been anticipated by the professions likely to be affected by it? Why not adopt the proposal in Amendment No. 18? We will have given the courts enough examples of the kinds of issues that we have in mind. We would merely be giving them a little additional discretion, which they would be able to use to ensure that the intention and reality counted rather than whether it fell within some fairly closely-worded provisions in an exclusive list in the Act.
I very much hope that, if not now, at a later stage the Government will feel able to support Amendment No. 18 and therefore my Amendment No. 82.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I rise to speak to government Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 83 and 84. I shall resist Amendments Nos. 18, 21, 22 and 82.
I very much welcome the indication given by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, that she does not propose to press her amendments. I also welcome the comments made by a number of noble Lords that they are content with the Government's amendments. The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, went so far as to say that he preferred our amendments, for which I express appropriate gratitude. Had the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, not made his intervention, I should have been tempted to say no more about these amendments. However, for the record, I think I should. Compliments should be paid particularly to the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley, Lady Jay and Lady Noakes, for their stalwart pursuit of this issue. I can see that they were quite irresistible to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor—quite right, too.
It has been clear throughout the debate that competing views on these issues have been strongly and genuinely held. I believe that we all share the intention to protect children from sexual abuse but do not want to hinder the work of those who provide well-intentioned advice to children on sexual and emotional matters. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that physical well being is included in the proposed measures. Provision is made in Clause 15(3)(b) for protecting the physical safety of the child. I hope that he is a little reassured about that matter.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I had noticed that. However, it seemed to me that it could be said that physical safety is different from physical well-being.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, well-being could include emotional well-being. Physical well-being, of course, also includes physical safety. I believe that the provisions are sufficient to meet the concerns justly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne.
704
The agony aunts should be well pleased with the way in which they have been robustly defended by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I was also very pleased that the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, spoke for those who do valiant work with Childline. It is therefore important to get right the scope of the exceptions in Clauses 15 and 74, which seek to ensure that those giving such advice for one of the purposes stated should not commit an offence. I do not believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, intends them to do so.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that there is a distinction between the comments that I made when dealing with the evidential burden and the presumptions with which the courts will have to deal, which directly involve the exercise of the judicial function during a trial, and setting the framework within which we shall all need to work.
We have listened very carefully to the views expressed in the debates on this issue and have concluded that we should extend the exception to cover those who act to promote the child's emotional well being by the giving of advice. The government amendments, Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 83 and 84, do that. The limiting of that new purpose to the giving of advice would help to ensure that the exception could not be exploited by abusers. I have heard what the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, said about that. However, it is critically important that we err on the side of caution, because the consequences for children are too dire for us to make a slip.
The second protection is the requirement, already in the clauses, that the provisions should not cover those acting for the purpose of causing or encouraging the involvement of a child in a sexual offence. We are confident that that means that the clause could not be exploited by abusers. I therefore invite all noble Lords to support the Government's Amendments Nos. 19, 20, 83 and 84.
I turn now to the other amendments in this group. Amendment No. 21 proposes a slightly different wording:
"protecting the child from emotional harm".
Although the thinking behind it is the same as in the government amendments, the latter encompasses within its scope a broader range of advice—that which actively promotes well-being rather than the more restricted "preventing harm". The wording in the government amendment will properly include the broader range of advice that is given by agony aunts and others whom the exception is designed to protect, as the noble Lord so succinctly said.
Amendment No. 18 proposes that the exception should be amended to include the words,
"including but not limited to",
to precede paragraphs (a) to (c) in Clause 15(3). Amendment No. 82 makes an identical proposal with respect to Clause 74. That would mean that those acting for purposes other than those specified would be covered by the exception. Although the other purposes would probably still be qualified by the term that they are defining—namely, acting for the

705
protection of the child—it is certainly not desirable to have such an open-ended definition of the phrase, with the potential of exploitation that it would create. The wording of the amendment would create such a broad definition that it would weaken the protections that we have extremely carefully built into the clause. Therefore, I have to resist the temptation offered by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas.
Amendment No. 22 would specify that Clause 15,
"does not prohibit the provision of sex education or counselling services for children on sexual behaviour and associated risks".
We believe that is simply unnecessary, and that those matters are already covered when they are for one of the purposes of Clause 15(3)(a) to (c) and, now, of promoting the child's emotional well-being by giving advice. No one has referred to Amendment No. 22, so unless noble Lords feel that for the record I should address those issues, I do not propose to do so.
I hope and trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others are pleased with their work and will therefore feel able to support the Government whole-heartedly when I come to move the related amendments.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comments. I regard Amendment No. 22 as simply a belt and braces amendment.
I thank those noble Lords who spoke in the debate, especially the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, who supported my contention that an illustrative list was better than being too prescriptive. I cite in defence my suggestion about a younger boy and an older girl, who would not be protected or be able to be given any advice under the wording of the government amendments.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, I prefer a positive rather than a negative approach. In this case, I have every intention of being positive. I am not looking a gift horse in the mouth—I am most grateful to the Minister for her amendments.
I would like to say to the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that I very much recognise that Mrs Gillick had the best of intentions. I shall make no more comment on that matter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 19 and 20:
Page 6, line 33, leave out "or"
Page 6, line 34, at end insert "or
(d) promoting the child's emotional well-being by the giving of advice,"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 not moved.]
5.45 p.m.
Clause 17 [Meeting a child following sexual grooming etc.]:
Lord Astor of Hevermoved Amendment No. 23:
706
Page 7, line 20, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert ", and (c) subsection (1B) applies."
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 24. The amendments highlight an issue that I raised both in Committee and on Report. I would like to outline why I feel that it is important to extend Clause 17 on grooming to cover those who cannot consent due to a mental disorder or learning disability and why I feel the Government's arguments against widening the clause in that way are not watertight.
First, in considering again the reasons to include this particular category of vulnerable person in Clause 17, I would like to quote the very pertinent point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth, in Committee. She said that,
"particularly in schools and in special schools, young people, including young people with learning disabilities, are being encouraged to learn how to use computers. Using computers gives them greater confidence and they are often able to use those skills to enhance their quality of life, which otherwise would be even less. That puts them into the same category as others who are vulnerable because they have that access".—[Official Report, 1/4/03; col. 1265.]
Those comments make it clear that people with mental disorders and learning disabilities, like children, may be unable to consent to sexual activity but may be encouraged to use computers. The House has already been told of the practices of those who deliberately seek out for exploitation and eventual abuse vulnerable categories of people who cannot consent to sexual activity
It has been suggested that these amendments would restrict the ability of those with a mental disorder or learning disability from having a normal and healthy preliminary sexual relationship. I do not believe that is the case. The clause is about catching those who prey on vulnerable people who cannot consent. The offence is committed only if the person in question could reasonably be expected to know that B could not consent due to a mental disorder or learning disability. I have discussed the matter at some length with the Metropolitan Police, specifically with those who deal with grooming on the Internet, and they say that they can tell easily enough what is exploitative and predatory grooming behaviour and what is harmless conversational friendship.
A further point made to me on Report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, who was then the Minister, was that the later clauses, which introduced the use of inducements, threats or deception to take account of the various ways that mentally impaired people can be pressurised into having sex, could deal with the problems my amendments would tackle. However, why should we wait until an offence has been committed? With children, we have a new clause that allows us to step in before an offence is committed. Why should those who cannot consent but are equally vulnerable because they have a mental disorder or learning disability be offered any less protection by the law? That would seem to be a failure to safeguard the welfare of those who may be most open to exploitation and grooming on the Internet.

707
It is wrong to wait until vulnerable people have been harmed before putting an offence in place. There is potential for grooming to take place; that should be sufficient to merit the broadening of the offence. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Astor of Hever. As he clearly said, it cannot be right to wait until harm has been done to people who, although they are not children, are perhaps childlike in their capacity to make judgments and give appropriate consent to unwarranted behaviour.
Baroness Howarth of Breckland: My Lords, I also support the amendment. The noble Lord has already made my speech, so I shall not make it again.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I should say how well the noble Lord expressed his concerns on this matter. The Government have carefully considered the appropriate response.
The amendments, tabled in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, and the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, would extend the offence in Clause 17 to protect those with a mental disorder who lack the capacity to consent from preparatory, grooming-type activity by those who intend to commit a sexual offence against them. They are effectively virtually the same amendments as were introduced on Report.
The key issue is whether the amendment would be effective and proportionate in better protecting from abuse those who lack the capacity to consent because of mental disorder or disability. We understand the anxiety and fear over that matter. However, it is necessary to consider the effectiveness and consider whether there is any empirical evidence or data to cause us to move on the issue. We have seen no evidence that the proposal responds to a real need that has been demonstrated. That was not the case in relation to the application of the offence to child victims, the need for which was amply demonstrated by real cases. We are anxious about extending an offence which was a specific response to a danger posed to children to adults who, by virtue of a mental disorder or learning disability, lack the capacity to consent. Such adults may be very vulnerable to abuse, but they are not children and their needs are different. Clauses 32 to 46 were specifically designed with those needs in mind, and when we considered the measure, following my noble friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton's undertaking to do so at Committee, we could find no evidence that this measure was needed.
Turning to whether it is a proportionate response, we do not believe it can be, in view of the lack of evidence that it is needed. We do not believe that it is suited to the particular risks posed to those with a mental disorder or learning disability who lack the capacity to consent. In this Bill we are conscious of the balance we must maintain at all times between protection and individual rights. Without persuasive evidence that there is actually a need to extend a
708
measure designed to protect children in particular situations of known risk to protect adults in situations in which no risk is known to exist, we do not believe doing so can be justified.
On a personal note, having been involved in a number of cases which dealt with adults suffering from mental incapacity, I can say that there is a real issue because many adults in such situations feel very passionately that they should not be treated as children, that they are often under-estimated. They are able to form relationships on a consensual basis which others find difficult to accept. We are dealing with very sensitive and delicate area and I assure noble Lords that if there were evidence that would have pushed us to take a different course, we would have looked at that very seriously indeed.
Therefore, to summarise, I believe that the measures contained in Clauses 32 to 46 have been designed on the basis of what we know is needed to provide justice and protection for those with a mental disorder or a learning disability who are subjected to sexual abuse. Clause 17 was designed to deal with a quite separate problem affecting children, and there is no comparable evidence that it should be extended in the way proposed. I must therefore resist these amendments. I do understand the anxiety about this issue but I say to noble Lords that it is an issue that will be looked at in the years to come and will be kept in mind.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and the noble Baroness, Lady Howarth of Breckland, for their support. I was disappointed in the Minister's response; she again used evidence as a reason for not accepting this amendment. The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is correct that it cannot be right to wait until harm has been done. I agree with the Minister that we are dealing with a very sensitive area here. I take heart that she said that this will be looked at closely in years to come. In the light of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 24 and 25 not moved.]
Clause 18 [Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 26:
Page 8, line 6, leave out from "B," to end of line 19 and insert—
"(Ca) where subsection (1A) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and
(cb) either—

(i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

(1A) This subsection applies where A—

(a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b) is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances.

709
(1B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(1C) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section—

(a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b) it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances,

it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall speak to a large group of amendments. Various Members of the House have taken issue with the way in which the drafting of certain clauses in the Bill shifts the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defendant and back again to the prosecution. Apart from concerns that have been raised as to whether reverse persuasive burdens are ECHR compatible, this shifting of burdens has been criticised as unduly complicated and confusing for juries.
We are still of the opinion that it is not unfair to expect a defendant to explain to the jury why he was mistaken about facts that were particularly within his sphere of knowledge, for example that he did not know that he was in a position of trust, or in a familial relationship with someone, that he did not know that someone he was caring for had a mental disorder or learning disability, or that he was mistaken about the age of a child to whom he is related or with whom he is in a close, caring relationship. Nevertheless, in response to the concerns that have been raised, we have decided to table a series of amendments in relation to the abuse of trust offences, the familial child sex offences, the sex with an adult relative offences and the care worker offences, so that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution throughout.
However, the prosecution will be assisted by a presumption in each case, so that the defendant's mental element in relation to the child's age, the nature of the relationship or the other person's mental disorder or learning disability will be taken to have been made out unless the defendant raises an issue as to these matters in evidence.
For example, Amendment No. 26 amends Clause 18 (Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity with a child) so that the prosecution is required to prove all of the facts of the case, namely that a relevant sexual act took place between the defendant and a child under 18 with whom he was in a position of trust, and that for the positions of trust arising in an institution, the defendant knows or could reasonably be expected to know of that position of trust, and that (where the child is 13 or over) the defendant did not reasonably believe that he was 18 or over. Where the defendant claims to have reasonably believed that the child was aged 18 or over, and adduces sufficient evidence to
710
persuade the judge that he has raised an issue as to this claim, the prosecution is required to prove that he did not have any reasonable belief.
The effect of our amendment is that, first, the persuasive burden placed on the defendant in relation to his state of mind concerning such issues in the previous draft of the Bill has been removed, and secondly the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, although they are assisted in this by a presumption which places an evidential burden on the defence. The burden no longer shifts from the defence and back to the prosecution in respect of two different elements of the same defence. Rather there is a new element of the offence to be proved by the prosecution. This simplifies the clause.
Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 29 make the same changes in relation to the other abuse of position of trust offences at Clauses 19, 20 and 21. Amendments Nos. 39 and 40 make similar amendments in relation to the familial child sex offences, in those cases where the defendant claims to have believed that the child was 18 or over, or that he did not know that a familial relationship existed between them. Amendments Nos. 78 and 80 make the same amendments in the clauses relating to the sex with an adult relative offences, in relation to lack of knowledge of the familial relationship. Amendments Nos. 58 to 65 have the same effect in relation to the care worker offences at Clauses 40 to 43.
We believe that these amendments address the concerns that have been raised about the rebuttal presumptions.
I understand that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, intends to degroup his amendment and therefore I will deal with my response to that amendment when we come to it. I beg to move.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, this has been my particular hobbyhorse from the very beginning, at Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I was concerned with two things: first, whether the presumptions as originally drafted could possibility satisfy the requirements of the European Convention on Human Rights. I was of the view that as the earlier part of the Bill had presumptions which were inevitably fatal, there was an argument here. My other concern was that it was almost impossible to explain clearly to a jury how a persuasive burden could shift from the prosecution to the defence and then back to the prosecution, involving different standards of proof: proof beyond reasonable doubt when the prosecution was concerned, proof on a balance of probabilities when the defendant had to prove something. It was impossible.
Like many noble Lords today, I pay tribute to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to his excellent team. I paid tribute to them on an earlier occasion. They have all worked hard on the Bill and have brought forward a sensible and practical way of dealing with the issues and with the policy that the Government wish to carry forward in this area. I commend the amendments that we are discussing.
6 p.m.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I associate myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford. I pay tribute to the hard work that he has done throughout the Bill to produce formulations that might satisfy the Government as regards finding a simpler and better way forward.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I, too, pay tribute to the enormous contribution that the noble Lord has made. He has contributed to this and to other Bills. I am sure that he will also contribute to a Bill with which we shall deal shortly.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 19 [Abuse of position of trust: causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 27:
Page 8, line 31, leave out from "B," to end of line 44 and insert—
"(ca) where subsection (1A) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and
(cb) either—

(i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

(1A) This subsection applies where A—

(a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b) is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances.

(1B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to he taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(1C) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section—

(a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b) it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances,

it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 20 [Abuse of position of trust: sexual activity in the presence of a child]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 28:
Page 9, line 13, leave out from "B," to end of line 26 and insert—
"(da) where subsection (1A) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and
(db) either—

(i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

712
(1A) This subsection applies where A—

(a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b) is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances.

(1B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(1C) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section—

(a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b) it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances,

it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 21 [Abuse of position of trust: causing a child to watch a sexual act]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 29:
Page 9, line 39, leave out from 1113," to end of line 7 on page 10 and insert—
"(ca) where subsection (1A) applies, A knows or could reasonably be expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he is in a position of trust in relation to B, and
(cb) either—

(i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

(1A) This subsection applies where A—

(a) is in a position of trust in relation to B by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b) is not in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances.

(1B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(1C) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section—

(a) it is proved that the defendant was in a position of trust in relation to the other person by virtue of circumstances within section 23(2), (3), (4) or (5), and

(b) it is not proved that he was in such a position of trust by virtue of other circumstances,

it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of the circumstances by virtue of which he was in such a position of trust unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know of those circumstances."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 30:
After Clause 23, insert the following new clause—
"POSITIONS OF TRUST: SPORTS COACHES
Within six months of the coming into force of section 23, the Secretary of State shall, by order under section 23(1)(b), specify conditions relating to sports coaches registered under the sports governing bodies coaching scheme and who, in that capacity, look after persons under 18."
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 30, I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 31, 32, 33 and 34.
Abuse of trust is an important offence and the Bill will extend it from its previous incarnation in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000. The introductory print of the Bill included mentors and personal advisers in the offence. At Report stage the Government accepted my amendment to include part-time pupils as well as full-time pupils under the Bill's protection. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said on 2nd June at col. 1150 of Hansard that he would table amendments for Third Reading to bring children's guardians and supervisors within the scope of the offence. Those amendments have not been forthcoming.
I spoke with officials at the Home Office on Friday who informed me that they were awaiting advice from lawyers at the Department of Health who were not available on that day. The noble and learned Lord gave his undertaking on 2nd June, so why was it that the Home Office waited until Friday 13th June to seek advice on these amendments? I informed the officials that I would be tabling my amendments on supervisors and guardians once more in order to obtain a firm assurance from the Government about when the matter would be dealt with in the Bill.
I have also retabled an amendment on sports coaches. The noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, who is present, first addressed that issue very elegantly and, I believe, made a very good case. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, said that he would consider the arguments raised, as, indeed, they were very persuasive. When we returned to the matter at Report stage the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, told the House that the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the Department for Education and Science had,
"identified weaknesses in sports coaching and set up a coaching task force to examine corrective actions".—[Official Report, 2/6/ 03; col. 1152.]
So, in that case, there is a problem. The noble and learned Lord went on to tell the House about discussions on a possible licensing scheme which may take until 2007 to implement. The noble and learned Lord told us, also at col. 1152, that once the scheme comes in,
"any coach who uses his position to manipulate a young athlete in his charge into a sexual relationship may lose his licence and his livelihood".
If the evidence is sufficient to lead to a removal of a licence and to the removal of someone from his post, it must be sufficient to constitute an offence under the law; it certainly should be if we are to protect young people. It is simply unbelievable to think that we have
714
identified a position of trust where there is clearly scope for sexual coercion and the only protection that young people are offered is the possible threat of a coach losing his licence under a scheme that may or may not be introduced in four years' time.
The noble and learned Lord said that he would be happy to review the position and to consider using the order-making power attached to these offences to bring sports coaches within their scope. But I am unhappy about such a delay. There is an obvious problem here and it must be addressed now while we still have the Bill before us. My amendment would require the Secretary of State to use the order-making power to cover sports coaches within six months of the Act coming into force.
Youth and community workers are another obvious category where there is simply no excuse for leaving young people unprotected. Many thousands of parents commit their children to the care of youth workers for an evening a week, for the weekend, or for weeks away. Youth and community workers have great influence over those children. The idea that abuse of trust will not apply to a youth worker who uses his influence to obtain sexual gratification from those in his care is simply not acceptable.
At Report stage I cited the example of Michael Gregory in connection with a different amendment. Among other things, Mr Gregory ran a youth group in a church. He was convicted of indecently assaulting two girls. Had those girls been over 16, is it possible that he could have escaped conviction if it appeared that the activity was consensual? The abuse of trust offence would not apply.
I should add that I should have liked to address voluntary youth groups as an additional category to be covered by abuse of trust, but I realise that there is considerable overlap between voluntary groups and the definition of "youth and community workers". It is more difficult to devise a form of words which covers them with sufficient precision and, therefore, I have left them out of my amendment. None the less I hope that the noble Baroness will also consider using her order-making powers to address that area of concern.
Finally, I again seek for amendments to include ancillary staff within the abuse of trust offence. I am anxious that we do not pretend to ourselves that only those whose job descriptions require them to work directly with children are capable of abuse of trust. A caretaker is in a special position. We have only to remember the case of the young girls of Soham, Jessica and Holly.
A caretaker who lives in a school is unlikely to fall within Clause 23(5), which addresses education. To be caught he must look after,
"persons under 18 who are receiving education at an educational institution".
His job description will not include looking after children, but he is frequently around children and he is often alone with them at the school and in its grounds. Children view him as part of the establishment. They learn to trust the caretaker. He may be the first port of call for children whose parents have not turned up to

715
collect them at the end of the day. He may even regularly invite children into his home on the school premises. That is not an improbable situation. Anyone who knows anything about schools will know that a number of children hang around school premises after school hours. Certainly the more vulnerable children are more likely to do that, or children who come from care institutions. They become very friendly with caretakers and strike up relationships with them. To suggest that that does not happen or could not happen is to set our face against a reality.
All that contact with children at the school provides plenty of scope for abuse. The same is true for other ancillary staff in the institutions referred to in subsections (2) to (5) of Clause 23. Although technically they may not work with children, their presence in the institution and the confidence which other staff and children place in them may provide significant opportunities for abuse.
If we are truly to learn the lessons of the many child abuse scandals that have occurred, we must recognise that paedophiles work extremely hard to place themselves in all kinds of positions where they have contact with young people. If such a person obtains an ancillary job in a children's home or a school or a young offenders' institution simply in order to be around children and uses that position to manipulate a young person into having sex, he should be punished in the same way as a social worker, a probation officer or a teacher who commits the same offence. It is important that the Secretary of State considers very seriously how these categories of person can he properly brought within the offence.
Parents and families. especially children, should be protected from acts of sexual abuse committed by those who are officially in a position of trust and, in many cases, acting in loco parentis. I beg to move.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, the amendment is not very different from an amendment that I moved in Committee on sports coaches and positions of trust, or from the amendment moved by the noble Baroness on Report on the same subject. There is no disagreement at all about the issue of principle—that 16 year-old and 17 year-old athletes may need to be protected from the sexual advances of their sports coaches.
The relationship between those athletes and their coaches is very special. It can involve long periods away from home solely in the company of the coach. In a very real sense in those circumstances, the coach is in loco parentis. In other words, he is in exactly the position of trust that other parts of the Bill show that legislation needs to cover.
The amendment moved by the noble Baroness on Report was replied to at great length, in his previous existence, by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. I have re-read what he said. The noble Baroness quoted some of it, and did so very fairly. He said:
"I should he happy to review the position and to consider using the order-making power attached to these offences in order to bring sports coaches within the scope".
716
He went on to say that the problem with that approach was that the licensing arrangements for the certificate would not be introduced until 2007. He asked what would happen in the meantime, and said:
"We believe that the right approach is to consult now to take a view on whether the approach that we suggest is the right one, and if not, whether earlier measures need to be considered".— [Official Report, 2/6/03; col. 1153.]
Is my noble friend able to say anything further about the earlier measures that the Government may be willing to bring forward if we are able to demonstrate to them that the issue of sports coaches requires immediate attention? I hope very much that the Government will be willing to take the point on board. If they do not feel it necessary to amend the Bill as the noble Baroness has proposed, we need an assurance that young athletes will be protected from the predatory advances of the unscrupulous sports coach.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, I am very much in sympathy with the sentiments expressed on both sides. In fact, there was a reference in an amendment that I moved on Report to the position of sports coaches, as some noble Lords may recall. However, there is a downside to the issue. When my son was 15 or 16 years of age, I formed a youth rugby team in my local club. I became a qualified Welsh Rugby Union coach for adults as well as youngsters. For a number of years, I ran a youth side for those aged 16, 17 and 18.
I would not do that now because, under the Bill. I would be vulnerable to a false allegation put forward by anyone—if I dropped them from the team, for example. There is always that possibility. Although there is a great deal of sympathy for the ideas, such provisions would be a disincentive for people to come forward to assist in coaching at any stage.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, in that line of thinking. In Committee, I referred at some length to the problems to which the Bill will lead in recruitment in the youth service and probably the education service as well. Although the department wrote me a letter— I think that some noble Lords had a copy of it--that stated that I was talking nonsense, I know that I could prove that I was right if I were given a few thousand pounds to do the research. My own inquiries have indicated that there is a groundswell of anxiety among those who work professionally and as volunteers in areas with children.
I want to take two minutes to approach the matter rather philosophically. I have thought a good deal about it. All the confusion arises from the fact that there is not one instinct that preserves the human race, but two. There is the instinct of sexual attraction, which produces the children and the misuse of which is, of course, the subject of the Bill. However, there is a second and extremely important instinct, which is to care for the nation's children—one's own children, one's grandchildren, and other people's children, for whom many people are prepared to care in loco

717
parentis. The Bill does not even give a nod of acknowledgement to that second instinct, which is extremely important in the nurturing of the nation's children and the bringing up of the next generation.
The devil of the Bill, at least so far as it concerns the rather vague crime of sexual touching of children, is in the uncertainty. People who work with children—professionals, parents, grandparents or whoever—have the right to know that there is a balance in how the Bill will be administered. They need to know where the boundary lies between touching that is supportive and for the good of the child, and touching that is damaging and rightly proscribed by the Bill.
I was attracted to the amendments, particularly because they suggest that the Secretary of State should,
"specify conditions relating to ancillary and caretaking staff",
and to, "youth and community workers". That indicates that the Government might condescend to give some guidelines as to what they mean by sexual touching. If we follow Sigmund Freud, all touching is sexual. Exactly what are we proscribing? It certainly cannot be in the kind of touching. It is in the intent of the touching—in the brain of the toucher.
We have not thought carefully enough about what we are saying. The outcome to which the noble Lord, Lord Thomas, referred is one of the downsides that will arise from the Bill. I support the amendment and ask the Government to consider whether they would, in respect of all positions of trust, specify conditions so far as possible as to what they believe is proper and not proper for a person, as a sports coach or youth worker, to do.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we have had a very balanced debate in relation to the matter. The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Northbourne, have raised some very important issues about trust, confidence and the need to make sure that we do not discourage people from right and proper involvement in the care of children that inures to their benefit.
The amendments would widen the scope of the offence of abuse of trust, which is primarily designed to protect young people aged 16 and 17 from being manipulated into unsustainable relationships by adults who hold a position of trust in their lives. We are dealing with a group of children who can involve themselves in consensual sexual activity if they so desire. My noble and learned friend Lord Falconer responded to all the amendments in detail on Report. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester mentioned that.
On Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which relate to persons appointed to supervise children or act as children's guardians under certain provisions of the Children Act 1989, I would like to apologise to the noble Baroness and to the House for the fact that the Government have not fulfilled our commitment to table amendments on Third Reading. It is still our firm intention to include the categories within the scope of
718
the abuse of trust offences, but it has taken longer than anticipated to confirm legislative references and ensure that the amendments correctly identify the persons whom we wish to bring within the scope, both in England and Wales and in Northern Ireland.
I assure the noble Baroness that as soon as her amendments were tabled on the previous occasion, officials were in contact with their counterparts in the Department of Health and CAFCASS and continue to be so. She will know that the correct legislative references were not contained in her amendments. We have addressed that, and we want to address the matter carefully and fully. She referred to one bit of advice waiting from a legal counsel on 13th June, but that was not the only issue. I reassure her that the matter is being pursued energetically.
It is with some regret that we are unable to deal with it as fully today as we would have wished. We want to make sure that there are no other categories of person who hold a similar position in a child's life and who might as a result merit inclusion in the scope of these offences. This requires us to have detailed discussions with the Department of Health and the Children and Family Court Advisory Support Service. It would clearly make sense to table all such amendments together, and we intend to do this as soon as possible in Committee in the House of Commons.
I turn now to the position of the youth and community workers who are covered by Amendment No. 32. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor explained on Report, the decision on whether to include another category within the scope of these offences is based on how well the proposed category fits within the guiding criteria for the abuse of trust offences, and whether it is appropriate to criminalise consensual, and what would otherwise be lawful, sexual relationships in such circumstances.
The basic guiding principles for inclusion are as follows. First, the young person is particularly vulnerable. For example, he or she may he in residential care or on probation in the community. Secondly, the location and/or lack of access to other adults, and the absence of countervailing influence, makes the young person particularly vulnerable. Thirdly, the special influence of the adult, namely that the adult acts in loco parentis, is relevant.
As we have already made clear, we do not believe that youth and community workers fall within these criteria. Although they are employed by local authorities, their role is to run centres or projects that children attend voluntarily. They do not act in loco parentis and they do not have a position of power or influence in children's lives.
Ancillary or caretaking staff in institutions and homes, addressed by Amendment No. 31, are already caught within the scope of these offences if they look after the child as defined in the Bill: that is, if they are regularly involved in caring for, training, supervising or being in sole charge of the child. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has also tabled amendments about the use of the term "regularly involved in- in relation to these offences, and I will be speaking to those amendments shortly.

719
However, I must make it clear that in our view there is no justification for including any categories of persons within the scope of these offences unless they are regularly involved in caring for a child. This is the level of involvement that we believe justifies inclusion, because it is only when a regular relationship exists that the adult can seek to take advantage of it for a sexual purpose. Unless the adult regularly looks after the child, he does not have the involvement or influence in the child's life necessary to establish a position of trust.
We are satisfied that the offences already cover ancillary and care workers in those situations in which they are able to abuse their position of trust.
Finally, I turn to the position of sports coaches and Amendment No. 34, which was moved on the last occasion by my noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and today by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, made it clear during his response to the same amendment tabled for Report that there is to be a consultation across the national governing bodies of sport to determine whether any action need be taken. It would be wrong for me to pre-empt the outcome of that consultation process by making any further comment at this stage.
Should the consultation process indicate that, contrary to the Government's present belief, sports coaches should be covered by these offences, this can be achieved by means of the order-making power included in Clause 23(1) which allows the Secretary of State to add further categories of those in a position of trust for the purpose of these offences.
For these reasons, I cannot accept these amendments. My noble friend Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked about further measures, and it is too early for me to comment more fully than I have already. However, we will keep him and other noble Lords fully informed on progress if they so desire.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for her full reply. However, I am concerned about much of what the noble Baroness has said.
As regards sports coaches, it is extraordinary that we are going to take four years to put in place a very simple set of measures that was suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner of Worcester, and supported by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton. Something could be done very quickly. It is extraordinary that no more reassuring comment can be made at this stage.
I am also concerned, on several counts, about my Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, which have in principle and in practice been accepted by the Government. First, the noble Baroness says that the information outstanding from the Department of Health was not the only piece of information lacking. However, on Friday afternoon, her officials said that they were only waiting for the Department of Health to respond, and that the department's legal officer was not in the office that day. I understood that when the legal officer was in the department, there would be a yes-or-no answer.
720
That leads me to a serious point about the amendments. They have been accepted on the Floor of the House; they will be technically improved by the Government. I accept the word of the noble Baroness that the Government intend to return to the House with two amendments that seek precisely the protection which I seek for young people with guardian ad litem and supervisers to bring them within the scope of the Bill. However, there is a complete set of new Ministers at the Department of Health, and responsibilities for children are moving from that department to the Department for Education and Skills. Therefore, a whole new set of officials will he dealing with these issues. I would be most unhappy if, when the Bill returns to the House, those amendments have not been put forward in the House of Commons—in which case I will not be able to put an amendment or ask the opinion of the House, because at that stage I would not have an amendment on which to do so.
I ask the noble Baroness—not because I do not take her word—to accept my Amendments Nos. 33 and 34, knowing that they are imperfect, to be amended in the House of Commons. That would give me the mechanism to return to this matter, so that when the Bill returns to this House we can, I hope, all agree that they are acceptable and that they achieve what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, pledged to achieve. The noble Baroness echoed him today.
I have real difficulty with what the noble Baroness said about youth and community workers. If a mother sends her young children to a youth club regularly—let us say weekly—and then on a week's camp in the country, it is fanciful to imagine that there could be no relationship between that youth leader and those children. Of course there could. That mother does not send them to camp to be abused, but if the person supervising them there sexually abused that 16 or 17 year-old that would be legal. However. the Government say that there could not be a relationship because there was no regular contact, but that person has power over the young person. If you send your children away to camp, you do so in the knowledge that the people supervising them are in loco parentis and will act responsibly. If they do not, there really should be protection for the children themselves, which is of the most importance, but also some assurance to parents that they are sending their children away with the law in place to protect them. The noble Baroness completely rejected that point and I do not accept what she said about it.
In the previous vote that I called, the Government were clearly in favour of sexual offenders on a sexual register receiving a defence under the Bill. They were not prepared to consider bringing youth and community workers within the scope of the Bill, which is deeply unfortunate. However, I will not delay the House, because I know that I shall incur its wrath. I will not push the matter to the vote, but I hope I will go on record as saying that the kind of protection that I want for young people and their families is not supported by the Government in this House. I was hoping that the noble Baroness would say whether she

721
would accept Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 on the grounds that I need some way of returning to the matter when it comes back to the House.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I understood that I was not entitled to speak again but will do so if the House is content for me to do so. We accept the amendments only in principle, because they are incorrect. I cannot accept them so that they are passed today. We have made appropriate arrangements in relation to them. As I understand it, we need only to resolve some technical, reference and other matters and seek to add extra categories if other government departments agree. All I can indicate tonight is that we can agree to them in principle.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I had an agreement in principle. I also had an agreement in practice from the noble and learned Lord that what I had wanted would be achieved by the new amendment. I have an assurance on the record that the Government will accept the amendments in a correct form and that they will be added to the Bill in another place. I take the noble Baroness at her word, but—and the noble Baroness made no reference to it—there is a new set of Ministers and a new set of officials dealing with these issues. I hope that that does not become an inhibitor on the way. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 31 to 34 not moved.]
Clause 24 [Positions of trust: interpretation]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 35:
Page 1 I line 21, leave out "regularly"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 36, 37, 66, 67 and 68. One of the recurring mysteries during consideration of the Bill is the meaning of the word "regular". In the abuse of trust offence and the offences covering care workers who look after people with mental disorders, an offence is committed only once the perpetrator has passed the test of whether his involvement with his victim was regular.
That is a bizarre restriction of the offence. I have asked at each stage of the Bill for a definition of regular, but without success. It could be that today I am going to be lucky and receive a definition.
What does regular mean? Daily, weekly, monthly, hourly? I am worried about the scope that abusers would have for mounting defences in court, on the basis not of the offence, but of whether the word "regular" has been breached.
I accept the reassurances given by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, about part-time staff. I accept that they may still be caught by the offence if they are in regular contact with their victim, but what if their contact is irregular? I put a scenario to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, to which he failed to respond. What if prosecutors bring a case against a care worker who takes sexual advantage of several
722
Patients in his care, but who works only intermittently in the home in which they live? Sometimes, he may go for months without working there. The sexual activity that has taken place while the person was in a position of trust is the issue. Would the inclusion of the word "regularly" in the offence mean that he can escape conviction? The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has ridiculed the amendment by saying that removing the word "regular" would prohibit a relationship between a nurse and a 17 year-old who stays for one day in her hospital. The noble and learned Lord said,
"is there to be no allowance for a relationship to occur after the stay in hospital has come to an end"?—[Official Report, 1/4/03; col. 1302.]
That displays a misunderstanding of the Government's own Bill. Once a patient has left the hospital, whether he stays for one day or one year, the relationship of trust has ended. If he then commences a relationship with a nurse who looked after him, no offence is committed.
I am concerned about relationships which begin during the stay. The offence is about taking advantage of a position of trust. Whether that position exists for one day or one month or longer, we should make it clear that sexual contact between the professional and his patient is not acceptable.
The noble and learned Lord said that the word excludes very brief contact in which there is no opportunity to build a relationship of trust with the victim. However, the moment that a child is handed into the care of a social worker, a position of trust is created. The child is extremely vulnerable. The social worker has enormous power and influence over the person in their charge. The creation of the offence recognises that. It fails to recognise that the brevity of the contact is irrelevant. If a person is sexually abused, or sexual advantage is taken of them, by a person who is in a position of trust over them, however cursory that time may be, it is nevertheless still an offence. Anyone in a position of trust should be subject to the offence, regardless of the length of the contact with their victims. I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in her response to the last group of amendments, I observed the Minister taking a sideswipe at the arguments that my noble friend Lady Blatch was likely to produce in support of these three amendments. She said that people in a position of trust build up a relationship if they regularly meet the child—or words to that effect. I hope that I have not misinterpreted her. She is nodding, so she probably did say something like that.
I am prepared to go along with the Minister and accept that one-off meetings between children and people in positions of trust will not result in an unlawful sexual activity. However, what about the supply teacher? That is not regular in any sense of the word that I can establish. As my noble friend Lady Blatch knows far better than me, a supply teacher is called, often at very short notice, on an irregular basis,

723
to a school to replace a permanent teacher who is off sick or who has to go to a funeral or whatever. That must be an irregular happening.
Many years ago, my wife and I employed a young man who was an alcoholic. He subsequently became, while he was still suffering from that indisposition, a care worker in an Alcoholics Anonymous care home on a very irregular basis. One would like to think that few children are alcoholics, but they do exist. He had irregular contact, because of his indisposition, with those children. Those sorts of people—the supply teachers, the part-time social and care workers—could not possibly be covered by the word "regularly" in the Bill. My noble friend is absolutely spot on in this matter.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, my noble friends Lady Blatch and Lord Skelmersdale have made a compelling case for the removal of regularity from the definitions of abuse of trust and care worker offences. My noble friend Lady Blatch spoke in particular about the abuse of trust provisions, but we should not lose sight of the care worker offences when trying to determine what "regularly" adds to the offence.
Let us consider the example of a care worker who cares for a person who is mentally disordered. Abuse of that mentally disordered person can take place at the first encounter. The Government have already accepted that that is the case. I understand that the Government's position is that no offence is committed under the care worker offences if the care worker is not likely to be caring for the mentally disordered person regularly. Just as a temporary teacher with a young person would not be caught, we have the possibility of casual workers dealing with mentally disordered people also not being caught. We have to remember that many of the services which relate to mentally disordered people are supported only by the heavy use of casual workers and it is highly likely that they will be used. The Government have never explained exactly what they mean by "regular" in this context. While accepting that abuse can take place at the first stage, it does not appear to be a sound basis on which to proceed. I support my noble friend's amendments.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: My Lords, I support the amendments. I believe that the phrase "position of trust" is the governing idea of these clauses. The position is normally held on a sustained basis. Noble Lords have pointed to a number of exceptions and in view of those I do not see how or why one needs to add the requirement of regularity of contact to that of holding a position of trust.
As regards the clauses relating to grooming offences, it was a different matter. There had to be evidence of repeated activity to constitute grooming, but in this case it is surely the holding of the position that is the governing idea.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, we all know what the word "regular" means. When the doctor asks, "Are you regular?" there is absolutely no doubt what he is talking about. He is referring to events occurring at a
724
predictable interval of time which is in accordance with the usual practices of whatever one is indulging in. If it is concerned with schools and matters of that kind, it is clearly someone who is in contact with a child every week, once a week or several times a week. If it were a games master one would expect him to be there every week. However, if he is on supply, on job share or some other arrangement, it would be very hard to say that such a person came under the definition of "regular" as it is understood in common parlance and certainly as it is understood by a doctor. I cannot see why that should be a requirement. What is required is that it should not be just once in a blue moon. Perhaps the word is "frequently". The requirement for the metronomic character seems to me to let out a great number of people who will see the child sufficiently and who have a sufficient relationship with it to maintain the position of abuse. I support my noble friend.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, all noble Lords have spoken about concern for the abuse of trust. We need to be very clear about the mischief which this part of the Bill is intended to address. At present, a position of trust is defined as one where an adult is "regularly" involved in caring for, training, supervising and/or being in sole charge of a child or children. That is the way in which we have so far described it.
As has been explained to the House on numerous occasions, the primary purpose of these offences is to provide protection in the criminal law for young people over the age of consent who are considered to be particularly vulnerable to sexual exploitation—albeit in the guise of an ostensibly consensual sexual relationship—by those who hold a position of trust, and hence a position of power and influence in their lives.
The whole focus of the abuse of trust offences is the fact that the adult and the young person are in an ongoing relationship that is founded on trust and this position can be abused by the adult to his own advantage to influence the child to take part in sexual activity.
It is the very nature of the regularity of the adult's involvement with the child that gives him or her the opportunity to manipulate the child into taking part in unsuitable sexual activity, which the child may say is consensual.
Imposing the severity of the criminal law can be justified in those circumstances only where the breach of trust is particularly serious. That is what was in the minds of those who drafted the original offence in the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 and included the requirement that only those who look after the young person on a regular basis should fall within the scope of the offence.
It has to be remembered that an offence is committed only while the position of trust exists between the adult and the young person. It applies only to ostensibly consensual sexual activity and is

725
aimed at the protection of young people aged 16 and 17. Where the sexual activity is non-consensual or involves children below the age of consent, there are other offences that can be used to punish such activity.
We believe that this is an area where we can rely on the judgment which may differ from case to case. Regular contact may cover a short period of consecutive days of contact at a camp, as described by the noble Baroness. It may equally cover a long period of single days of contact but which, taken together, amount to regular contact such as a supply teacher who sees the child irregularly, but regularly over a period of time so they have the opportunity to develop the relationship which can then be used as the tool which persuades the child to enter what may appear to be ostensibly consensual sexual activity with the adult.
The purpose of including the term "regular" is to exclude one-off encounters which do not allow any sort of relationship of trust to have developed and for that to have been used in order to influence the child.
Casual workers are covered where they provide, or are likely to provide, a regular service. "Employment" is broadly defined at Clause 44(5). A one-off worker is not covered because of the need to protect the rights of a person who is mentally disordered to form relationships of their choice.
These are areas in which we have to have a sense of balance and proportion. These offences are designed to be used where sexual activity takes place within the context of an ongoing relationship of trust. Using the word "regularly" in the drafting accurately reflects, as I have just outlined, the policy we wish to adopt. We do not propose to change that.
A further reason why we believe it is important to retain that word is that the current definition of "looks after" in the Bill reflects the wording in Section 115(3) of the Police Act 1997. It refers to persons whose position involves regularly caring or training, supervising or being in sole charge of persons aged under 18.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill, that we believe that the concerns she has as regards teaching staff who may see a young person from time to time would be covered by the other provision. A person who sees a child once and then not for a while, but forms a relationship, would not be caught. We believe that that is proper. Section 115 sets out categories of persons for whom enhanced criminal record checks can be given to employers. Therefore, if we lose this consistency of definition with Section 115, the abuse of trust offences would theoretically cover persons for whom the enhanced criminal records check would not be deemed necessary before they could be employed in their post. It makes no sense to apply a stricter test in the context of the criminal offence than for the enhanced criminal records disclosure.
I turn to the care worker offences. Amendments Nos. 66, 67 and 68 propose the removal of the requirement that face-to-face contact should occur on a regular basis. The government amendments tabled in Committee have now been incorporated into the Bill.
726
They allow for a person to be in a relationship of care with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability from day one of their role in relation to that person where it is likely that contact will be regular. This is because, with the particular vulnerability of the persons that these offences are designed to protect, care workers are able to take advantage of their position from the outset of the relationship. Going any further than that would risk infringing the freedom of choice of those people with a mental disorder or learning disability who have the capacity to consent to sexual activity.
The amendments potentially would prevent someone who was capable of consenting to sexual activity from forging a relationship within one of the limited circumstances in which he was likely to meet a potential partner. We do not wish to interfere with the right of every individual to have a private sex life, and the amendments risk doing just that. For all those reasons I cannot accept the amendments and I invite the noble Baroness not to press them.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am disappointed, because we agree with about 95 per cent of the Minister's comments. The description of how these matters would work is accepted except for the word "regularly". I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady O'Neill. She made a point that I should have made more clearly. The nature of the job of a person in a position of trust is as important as the relationship between the child or young person and the person holding that position. If one is in a children's home, staff, as we know, come and go regularly, and employment of someone who comes in for a day or two is cursory. For the young person. whoever is caring for, advising or counselling them is in a position of trust. The trust between the young vulnerable person and the person deemed to be in a position of trust is real even though they may not know each other. The idea that that position can be abused because the Government accept that there has to be a regular relationship between the two is extraordinary.
The Minister said that the perpetrator might see the child irregularly, but regularly over a period of time. Under Pepper v Hart the courts would look to Hansard to ascertain the Government's intention at the time—but that would be a confusing message to send. It defines neither "regularly" nor "irregularly". It allows both to pertain to a particular case. I take the read-across to the enhanced criminal records check with a very large pinch of salt. I have never known legislation that has caused more angst, has been implemented with such ineptitude and has been so badly received in the way it is implemented, how it is applied and the vast numbers of people who are waiting in the wings for it to apply.
We agree that all the Minister's comments reflect how we would wish the matter to work, but the restriction of working "regularly" or "not regularly" should not be there. Anybody who breaches a position of trust at a given time with a person in that age category should be regarded as within the scope of the Bill. I wish to test the opinion of the House.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 149.
7.5 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 36 and 37 not moved.]
Clause 26 [Sections 18 to 21: sexual relationships which pre-date position of trust]:
Baroness Blatchmoved Amendment No. 38:
Leave out Clause 26.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 38 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 41 and 69. Amendment No. 38 would remove the pre-existing relationships defence to a charge of abuse of trust. Amendment No. 69 would remove the defence in the case of care workers. I also seek, by Amendment No. 41, to remove the defence from the familial abuse offence. That was inserted by the Government on Report. I am advised by the Public Bill Office that as

729
that amendment was taken formally and not voted upon by the House, the House is free to vote on it at Third Reading.
I received a most disappointing reply from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, when I raised on Report the issue of pre-existing relationships defences. The noble and learned Lord simply failed to deal with the arguments that I put. I shall not rehearse them at length here. However, I received no reply when I asked about the imbalance created in a pre-existing relationship once it becomes a relationship of trust. If a teacher meets a 16 year-old girl at a pub, he chats her up, they then begin a relationship and he later obtains a job at her school, there is a pre-existing relationship which falls under the defence.
The girl now finds that, rather than just being romantically involved with an older man, she is romantically involved with one of her teachers. His allure may be all the stronger for that; his influence certainly is. Perhaps previously he has not been able to persuade her to submit to full sexual intercourse. His new-found power over her may make that much easier. Perhaps previously she saw him only occasionally. Now she sees him every single day. He may flaunt his relationship with her in front of other staff and she may brag of her encounters with him to other pupils.
The Minister will no doubt say that the school's internal procedures should be able to deal with the matter, but is that really good enough? He would walk free because no offence has been committed under the Bill. On the other hand, a fellow teacher—this is really extraordinary—who starts a relationship with a pupil at the same school after he starts work there will face prosecution. So of those two teachers, one would face a prosecution if he has a relationship with a 16 year-old in school and the other, who may have met the pupil on a Saturday evening before he took up the post, has a defence. How are people meant to accept the blatant unfairness of that?
When it comes to familial abuse, I am astonished that the Government want to carve out a defence for this much-needed provision. What if a 25 year-old takes a shine to the 16 year-old daughter of his mother's boyfriend? What if the boyfriend then moves in? Under Clause 31 he would be able to continue his relationship with her. He would be able to move on from occasional trysts to regular sexual intercourse living under the same roof as the girl. How on earth are people meant to accept that these two, now living as brother and sister, can commit activities which are legal only because they began before they moved in together?
In all the cases covered by the pre-existing defence, there is a simple choice. The parties can restrain themselves until they become old enough, in other words past the age of 18; care workers and those in positions of trust, for example, teachers, can give up their jobs and move to another job or give up their sexual relationship again until the person has reached the age of 18. The noble Lord, Lord Rix, supported me in that (at col. 18 of Hansard for 19th June).
730
Not only is a pre-existing relationship defence wrong in principle; it is also wide open to abuse. If a prosecution is brought and the perpetrator claims the pre-existing relationships defence. the "evidence" of the pre-existing relationship could be fabricated, and in many cases would be. I raised that point on Report and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, failed to mention it in his reply. It may be that a teacher begins a sexual relationship with a 16 year-old in his class and the two of them agree that if they are ever asked about this relationship they will claim that it started prior to the position of trust. Abusers are manipulative people. We know that. If we give them a loophole in the law, they will surely exploit it. For such a teacher there is an option. They can wait until the girl is 18 or they can move to another post.
It was said at the previous stage of this Bill that it is not a very healthy, professional experience for a teacher or care worker on the staff to have a relationship with the person in their charge. It is not good for the rest of the young people in a class or those in a care home. It is certainly not good professional behaviour. Although that is dealt with informally by guidance and the Department for Education and Skills saying that it is not good behaviour, there is no sanction whatever. It seems to me that there should be a sanction and, indeed, a protection in law. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I have a great deal of sympathy with what my noble friend Lady Blatch has said and will listen with great interest to what the Minister says. However, I want to take this opportunity to raise a matter which concerns me very much. It relates to an earlier answer given by the Minister on the matter of consensual under-age sex, when she said that this would be dealt with through the final warning scheme.
Having obtained the document on the scheme and the underlying Act, I see that not only are these reprimands given without any chance of appeal or of erasing it from the record—merely if the police officer thinks that this is something which should be dealt with in that way—but once it has been given, the poor kid is on the sex offenders register for five years.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I hesitate to interrupt the noble Lord but I think that I should. The whole idea is that those provisions would be amended so as to cover the sort of guidance that the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and others were referring to. We have scoped out the sort of guidance that it would include. It could include an opportunity for a warning or something of that sort to be made, which is a very light touch and would not form part of a record. If noble Lords look through the document, they will see that there are grounds and conditions set out therein which indicate the sorts of issues that the prosecutors should take into account before they decide to proceed with any charge in relation to those matters. Looking at the document in toto, we think that the guidance has the framework into which we can seek to insert the sorts of provisions which would give comfort

731
regarding the issues we have debated at length. I know that officials have had an opportunity to talk in some detail with the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, and, I believe, the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, and others.
Having taken on this brief at rather short notice, I myself have not had the privilege of going through that document in the sort of depth and detail that I know the other two noble Lords on the Front Bench have. I am assured, however, that my understanding is as I have just described and, as I say that, I notice that the noble Baronesses, Lady Walmsley and Lady Noakes, are nodding vigorously.
I can appreciate why the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is alarmed, but it does provide us with the framework into which we can slot appropriate guidance to assist the prosecutor in coming to a well-informed judgment on how to deal with this matter. As I have also said, we propose that the CPS, not the police, should deal with these provisions.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am comforted because, as it is at the moment, the position is absolutely horrific.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I believe that Amendments Nos. 38, 41 and 69, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, to leave out Clauses 26, 31 and 46, must be resisted.
These clauses mean that a person in a position of trust, in a relationship covered by the familial child sex offences, or in a care relationship, will not commit the offences at Clauses 18 to 21, 27 to 28, and 40 to 43, if he proves that he and the other person were involved in a lawful sexual relationship which predated the position of trust, familial relationship, or relationship of care.
It may not be to our taste, but the reality is that relationships do exist between people of different generations. I know that it is a matter of some surprise to a number of women in particular that so many men seem to be fascinated by women 30 years their junior; but, no matter how surprised we may be, we have grown to accept it as part of human nature.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. That was never any part of my case, nor has it been any part of the case made in relation to this amendment. I am not surprised that these relationships exist, and I do not want that to be a part answer to my amendment.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, it is the context in which we have to view some of these issues. The key issue here is whether relationships between two individuals that are lawful should become unlawful because circumstances have resulted in one of the parties now having a position of trust or a caring role in relation to the other, or in the parties living together and/or caring for the other.
If the amendments were accepted, we would not be talking about someone breaching a code of conduct or losing their job. We would be talking about that
732
person's involvement in that relationship becoming a criminal offence, punishable by a possible sentence of imprisonment. We have listened to the arguments made, but we continue to believe that the amendment goes too far.
To summarise the arguments we have made previously about this matter, the primary motivation for the abuse of trust offences is the need to protect young people aged 16 or 17 who, although over the age of consent to sexual activity, are considered to he vulnerable to exploitation from a person who holds a particular position of trust or authority in relation to them, and so has a considerable degree of power and influence in their lives. We do not believe that this argument applies to situations in which the sexual relationship was entered into before the relationship of trust. The young person was able to make a free choice about whether to enter into the sexual relationship and must have been over the age of consent. This exception does not apply when the relationship entered into was unlawful at the time; for example. if the young person was under the age of consent or the relationship was with a close blood relative. We are not exempting abusive relationships. We are making an exception for those which began legally, but then circumstances changed and one person entered into one of those relationships covered by Clauses 26, 31 and 46.
A 17 year-old may have freely formed a consensual sexual relationship with a person who subsequently becomes a Connexions adviser, with responsibility for her as well as for a large number of other young people. We take the view that this is not a matter meriting the intervention of the criminal law. No position of trust existed at the time the relationship was formed which could have exerted pressure on the girl. There are other means of dealing with the situation, such as professional codes of conduct, which have rightly been mentioned by the noble Baroness in support of her amendment. In our view, however, bringing the criminal law into play is going too far.
Turning to Clause 31, it is important to remember that the familial child sex offences go considerably wider than blood relationships. An example, as the noble Baroness has indicated, is where two 17 year-olds have a sexual relationship and, as a consequence, their parents meet, fall in love, and all four move in together. If the amendments are accepted, the relationship between their children becomes illegal simply because all are living together. That cannot be right. The relationship would be perfectly lawful if the two young people were living together on their own. Again, relationships that were not lawful when they came into being would not be covered by the exception.
On care worker offences, the relationships of care are defined broadly, because we have listened to those with experience in the area and heard of the extent of abuse inflicted by those who provide a range of services to people with a mental disorder or learning disability. We have, therefore, included in the scope of the offences all those who, for example, provide care, assistance or services to a person in connection with his mental disorder or learning disability. That goes far

733
wider than those who provide physical care in a hospital or other institutional setting, and also covers care provided in the home.
The exception, therefore, allows for the situation where two people are in a lawful sexual relationship. One of them develops a mental disorder or learning disability and the other then provides care to that person at home while maintaining a sexual relationship with him or her. I continue to think that it would be wrong to criminalise such a genuine relationship entered into between two people not in a position of trust or a relationship of care with each other when the relationship began. Our individual preference should not inappropriately criminalise what others may lawfully agree to do consensually.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, who has given a very full reply. But all the arguments that she has used—leaving aside that of the home carer—apply also to the case of a teacher who has a sexual relationship with a 16 year-old. I notice that the noble Baroness always refers to 17 year-olds. We are talking about 16 and 17 year-olds, so I will use the figure 16. A teacher who has a sexual relationship with a 16 year-old and who cannot profess to have had a pre-existing relationship before taking up the post would be criminalised. That is what the law says. It is what the Bill advocates.
However, a friend of the 16 year-old, in the same school—another 16 year-old—could be having a similar sexual relationship, but because they had a one-night stand the weekend before the teacher took up the post the case would not be caught as the couple could profess to have had a pre-existing relationship. Even the couple who lied about a pre-existing relationship, professing to have had one when they did not, would not be caught under the Bill unless it could he proven that they had not told the truth, which would be almost impossible to discover. It applies to all those cases.
Behind the amendment is the relationship between a professional carer and/or teacher and the person in his or charge. Are we saying that it is acceptable because it is a common occurrence among 16 and 17 year-olds? It does not shock me; I know that it exists. Is it acceptable simply because a teacher and the young person had a very cursory sexual relationship before the teacher took up the post? Would it not be more professional for that teacher and/or carer either to wait until the person turned 18 or to find a job in another school, or care establishment?
That is the argument behind my amendment. But the Government have set their face against that and are prepared to live with what I regard as the anomaly against the Government, not the anomaly that the Government have used against me for my amendment. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 27 [Sexual activity with a child family member]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 39:
Page 13, line 8, leave out from "29," to end of line 22 and insert—
"( ) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that his relation to B is of a description falling within that section, and
( ) either—

(i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

(1A) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(1B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the relation of the defendant to the other person was of a description falling within section 29, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that his relation to the other person was of that description unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that it was."
Clause 28 [Inciting a child family member to engage in sexual activity]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 40:
Page 13, line 37, leave out from "29," to end of line 8 on page 14 and insert—
"( ) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that his relation to B is of a description falling within that section, and
( ) either—

(i) B is under 18 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 18 or over, or

(ii) B is under 13.

(1A) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person was under 18, the defendant is to be taken not to have reasonably believed that that person was 18 or over unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it.
(1 B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the relation of the defendant to the other person was of a description falling within section 29, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that his relation to the other person was of that description unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that it was."
Clause 31 [Sections 27 and 28: sexual relationships which pre-date family relationships]:
[Amendment No. 41 not moved.]
Clause 32 [Sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]:
Lord Adebowalemoved Amendment No. 42:
Page 15, line 33, leave out "refuse" and insert "consent"
The noble Lord said: I shall start by doing something that I forgot to do last night. Now that I have slightly more than four minutes in which to speak, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, on their promotions. I do not wish to embarrass the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, by saying that she is an ample role model to many in my community. I wish her every luck in her new post.
In moving Amendment No. 42, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 43 to 57, the other amendments in the group. I was most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Astor. for speaking to the amendments in relation to these very important clauses on Report. I have studied very carefully the response of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, and feel duty bound to raise the points again, because I remain deeply worried that using the terms "refuse" and "choose" would leave people with learning disabilities without sufficient protection and would not deliver justice. When I raised the point in Committee, it drew support from noble Lords who shared many of my concerns.
I understand that in response to the amendments tabled on Report. the Government have committed themselves to look at the definition of "capacity", and that that consideration would include the framing of these clauses. I therefore seek assurance from the Minister that the concerns raised by noble Lords about the clauses throughout the passage of the Bill will be given due weight, and that the term "refuse to choose" will be removed from the Bill.
Furthermore, the organisation of which I am chief executive, Turning Point, has brought together a coalition of organisations with an interest in these clauses. I expect that the Minister, and the Minister responsible for the Bill in another place, might find it terribly helpful to meet with them over the summer to ensure that those concerns are properly considered. I would also be grateful if the Minister could make a commitment to meet officials from the coalition so that their concerns can be properly considered.
I have not tabled an amendment to any other clauses because I do not want to provide any opportunity to dilute this very important matter. The key argument of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, against amending the clause was that it would make the definition in Clause 75 circular. We can resolve that separately. The amendments that I have tabled are more fundamental than technical drafting problems: they are a matter of principle. It is crucial that the Bill provides the same level of protection for people with learning disabilities against sexual abuse as it does for the offences of rape and sexual assault. I do not think that the Bill provides that protection.
My key concerns remain those that I raised in Committee. First, the term "refuse to choose" holds very different meanings in law from "inability to consent-. Capacity to consent is pivotal to
736
determining whether a relationship is appropriate for a person with a learning disability. But the word "choice" used in the Bill does not reflect consent; it reflects compliance and a lack of freedom. That was highlighted in Committee and on Report by the Jenkings case. We heard then how the judge was able to hold that the woman involved could consent through her animal instincts. The woman, therefore, could be held to have chosen to have sex, but not, in any of our estimations, have consented to sex. None of us would want to be responsible for repeating the worst anomaly of law with the accompanying painful consequences. It is therefore clear that the Bill must be amended in the way I propose so as to deliver sufficient protection for people with a learning disability.
My second concern is that using the language "refuse to choose" has a wider impact than questions of legal effect. For adults, it is only in relation to people with mental disorders and learning disabilities that the term "consent" is not used. The offences of rape, assault by penetration, and sexual assault all use the term "consent". I see no reason for using a different term. To do so implies that there is a difference in seriousness between those offences and the offences of rape, assault by penetration, and sexual assault. Anything in the Bill that could be taken as meaning that there is a difference risks implying that offences against someone with a learning disability are not as serious as those committed against any other adult. That is not acceptable. It also fails to respect the integrity of adults with learning disabilities and does not provide parity of esteem with the other offences.
As we know, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, argued that the definition of consent would be circular if the clauses were amended as proposed. I was pleased that he made a commitment to look at the definition or"capacity". In doing so, the Government must ensure that it is defined in such a way as not to create a circular definition so that we can use the term "unable to consent" in these clauses.
I cannot emphasise enough the importance of these amendments. They are matters of principle fundamental to the integrity of the Bill and that of people with learning disabilities. I should be grateful for assurances from the Minister that the Government will amend the Bill to remove the phrase "refuse to choose", which will address the significant concerns that I have raised. I beg to move.
7.30 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, raises again an important issue. We argued for the replacement of "refuse" with "consent" at Report stage. We support the principle that "choosing" and "consenting" are not the same. We do not understand why other clauses all use the term "consent", while only these specific clauses use "refuse". The drafting here is confusing: people with a mental disorder or learning disability are "unable to refuse" because they "lack the capacity to choose". The point is, they simply cannot consent. This overrides whether they refuse, choose or anything else.

737
The noble Lord, Lord Filkin, kindly wrote to me on this point and explained that the latter wording had been chosen so as not to provide a second definition since Clause 75, which contains the definition of consent, refers to "capacity to consent". I do not think that that is an adequate explanation. Clause 75 gives a full definition of what "consent" means in this Bill. This does not mean that the term "consent" cannot be used in clauses 32 to 35.
The Government should look again at the drafting of these clauses in another place. The current drafting has worrying implications and adds inconsistency, confusion and a lack of uniformity to the Bill.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I will straight away thank the noble Lord, Lord Adebowale, for his warm welcome. I appreciate the flattering comments. I do not feel that they are deserved, but I will accept them nonetheless.
The series of amendments tabled in relation to this issue have, I know, caused a lot of concern. The proposal contained in Amendments Nos. 42 to 44, 46 to 48, 50 to 52 and 54 to 56 was debated on Report through amendments tabled by the noble Lady, Baroness Noakes, and the noble Lord, Lord Astor. As has already been said, "capacity to consent" is defined in Clause 32 to 35 as "unable to refuse", rather than "unable to consent", because if the latter phrase were used it would refer back to the definition of consent at Clause 76 and would be circular, as the clause refers to "capacity to consent".
I would understand the concern behind the noble Lord's Amendments Nos. 45, 49, 53 and 57, which would remove the phrase "to choose whether" from the definition of unable to refuse (or consent). if that implied that choice was not related to capacity, but clearly it is in this definition. The amendment proposed introduces an unnecessary tautology when it refers to lacking the capacity to consent if he lacks the capacity to agree.
My noble and learned friend, Lord Falconer, on Report stated that he was not fundamentally opposed to including a generic definition of capacity to consent in statute, but that he needed time to consider the consequences of such a definition: and, if we choose to include one, the best way to formulate it.
We had hoped to take the matter forward on Third Reading, but as my noble friend Lord Filkin explained in his letter to the noble Lord, Lord Astor—which was, I hope, copied to other noble Lords who spoke at Report stage— regrettably it has not been possible to do so. I can assure my noble Lords that this will be pursued and returned to later during the Bill's passage through Parliament when it goes to another place.
I repeat that we are aware of the need in these clauses to balance the need to provide protection with recognising the civil rights of those with a mental disorder or learning disability. I do not feel able to
738
accept these amendments, but I have listened carefully to the debate on this issue. We will take the matters raised into account as part of our further deliberations on the question of the definition of consent generally. I thank both noble Lords who have spoken, because they bring a certain level of expertise and understanding to this issue which the Government are happy to take very seriously indeed.
In relation to the noble Lord's request for a meeting with the coalition, Beverly Hughes, Hilary Benn and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, have met members of the coalition previously. Officials are in regular contact with the coalition. My honourable friend Paul Goggins many also want to consider a meeting with members again, now that the Bill will soon be passing to the House of Commons. That may be the most appropriate meeting, but there is certainly no resistance to continuing to have that dialogue. I am sure that some accommodation will be possible.
Lord Adebowale: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, for her response, which provides me with some of the assurances that I need. When the Bill reaches another place, I hope that some appropriate amendments will be made. I am still a little concerned, but I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 not moved.]
Clause 33 [Causing or inciting a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to engage in sexual activity]:
[Amendments Nos. 46 to 49 not moved.]
Clause 34 [Engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]:
[Amendments Nos. 50 to 53 not moved.]
Clause 35 [Causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to watch a sexual act]:
[Amendments Nos. 54 to 57 not moved.]
Clause 40 [Care workers: sexual activity with a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 58 and 59:
Page 19, line 34, after "disability," insert—
"( ) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disorder or learning disability,"
Page 19, line 36, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"( ) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person had a mental disorder or learning disability, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that that person had a mental disorder or learning disability unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know it."
Clause 41 [Care workers: causing or inciting sexual activity]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 60 and 61:
Page 20, line 16, after "disability," insert—
"( ) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disorder or learning disability,
Page 20, line 18, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"( ) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person had a mental disorder or learning disability, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that that person had a mental disorder or learning disability unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know it."
Clause 42 [Care workers: sexual activity in the presence of a person with a mental disorder or learning disability]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 62 and 63:
Page 21, line 1, after "disability," insert—
"( ) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disorder or learning disability,"
Page 21, line 3, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"( ) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person had a mental disorder or learning disability, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that that person had a mental disorder or learning disability unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know it."
Clause 43 [Care workers: causing a person with a mental disorder or learning disability to watch a sexual act]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthal Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendments Nos. 64 and 65:
Page 21, line 21, after "disability," insert—
"( ) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that B has a mental disorder or learning disability,"
Page 21, line 23, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
"( ) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the other person had a mental disorder or learning disability, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that that person had a mental disorder or learning disability unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know it."
Clause 44 [Care workers: interpretation]: [Amendments Nos. 66 to 68 not moved.]
Clause 46 [Sections 40 to 43: sexual relationships which pre-date care relationships]:
[Amendment No. 69 not moved.]
Clause 48 [Criminal investigations or proceedings]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 70:
Page 23, line 34, leave out from "given" to "necessary" in line 35 and insert "by a person within subsection (2A) if it appears to that person"
740
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, before I rise to speak to the Amendment No. 70, with the leave of the House I will add an additional two words in relation to the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I must make clear that we hope that reprimands would not be given at all, and that they would be removed for the category about which we spoke. In addition, we are amending the schedule on registration, so that young offenders will only go on the register if they receive a custodial sentence.
I hope that that clarifies the matter, and that it might give even greater comfort to those noble Lords who may be worrying about my earlier lack of precision.
Clause 48 inserts a new provision into the Protection of Children Act 1978 and into the equivalent Northern Ireland legislation allowing named persons—for example, the Director of Public Prosecutions—to authorise the making of indecent photographs of children where this is necessary for the prevention, detection or investigation of crime, or for criminal proceedings.
These amendments to Clause 48 would allow the heads of Security Service and GCHQ also to authorise the "making" of indecent photographs, or pseudo-photographs, of children by their staff, when it is necessary in pursuit of their duties. The duties of staff in both organisations can involve investigation of known paedophiles. GCHQ, for example, may undertake forensic work, assisting the law enforcement authorities for serious crime or national security purposes.
It is not Government policy to talk about operations relating to national security, but we can assure noble Lords that these are real, and not hypothetical, circumstances. For example, in the course of a national security investigation, it may be necessary for staff in the Security Service to seek information of intelligence interest that may be buried within an indecent image and to make a copy for that purpose. I beg to move.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, I shall speak briefly. When I saw the amendment, I was completely mystified as to why spymasters would need to download child pornography for the purposes of the business about which we are allowed to know nothing. I will take it on trust that the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, has assured herself that it is a proper activity to make child pornography lawful in this instance and shall not press the matter further. However, 1 register again my extreme surprise.
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 71 to 77:
Page 23, line 39, leave out from beginning to end of line 2 on page 24 and insert—
"(2A) Those persons are—"
Page 24, line 7, leave out "or" and insert "and"
Page 24, line 8, at end insert—

741
"( ) An authorisation may be given by the Director-General of the Security Service if it appears to him necessary for the exercise of any of the functions of the Service.
( ) An authorisation may be given by the Director of GCHQ if it appears to him necessary for the exercise of any of the functions of GCHQ (and in this subsection "GCHQ" has the same meaning as in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).
( ) An authorisation—

(a) must be in writing,

(b) must specify the person to whom it is given and the purpose for which it is given, and

(c) may specify conditions to which it is subject.""

Page 24, line 15, leave out from "given" to "necessary" in line 16 and insert "by a person within paragraph (2A) if it appears to that person"
Page 24, leave out lines 20 to 25 and insert—
"(2A) Those persons are—"
Page 24, line 30, leave out "or" and insert "and"
Page 24, line 31, at end insert —
"( ) An authorisation may be given by the Director-General of the Security Service if it appears to him necessary for the exercise of any of the functions of the Service.
( ) An authorisation may be given by the Director of GCHQ if it appears to him necessary for the exercise of any of the functions of GCHQ (and in this paragraph "GCHQ" has the same meaning as in the Intelligence Services Act 1994 (c. 13)).
( ) An authorisation—

(a) must be in writing,

(b) must specify the person to whom it is given and the purpose for which it is given, and

(c) may specify conditions to which it is subject.""

7.45 p.m
Clause 65 [Sex with an adult relative: penetration]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 78:
Page 30, line 19, leave out from "sexual" to end of line 29 and insert —

"(ba) the other person (B) is aged 18 or over,

(bb) A is related to B in a way mentioned in subsection (1A), and

(bc) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that he is related to B in that way.

(1A) The ways that A may be related to B are as parent, grandparent, child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, or half-sister.
(1B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the defendant was related to the other person in any of those ways, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that he was related in that way unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that he was."
Lord Lucasmoved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 78, Amendment No. 79:
Line 6, after "grandparents," insert "uncle, aunt,"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the list in Amendment No. 78, as far as I can see, is a collection of relatives who may be expected to share or will share consanguinity of 25 per cent or more. The relative missing from the list is a blood uncle or blood aunt.
742
They are likely to have a fair degree of contact with their nephews and nieces, and one might expect sexual relationships to develop in some circumstances. If the objection to incest is the closeness of blood, rather than something more emotional, why are uncles and aunts not included? I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I know that the noble Lord would like to be inclusive in that regard and include uncles and aunts in the scope of the offence of penetrative sex with an adult relative under Clause 65. I assume that it is only an oversight that he has not tabled a similar amendment to Clause 66, headed "Sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration". The same issue arises.
Our general policy on the offences in Part 1 has been that the criminal law should intervene only if sexual behaviour is non-consensual, exploitative or abusive and that it has no role to play in consensual activity that does not cause harm. With regard to consensual sexual activity between adults who are closely related by blood, we continue to feel that the criminal law has a role to play in upholding morals and making a statement about behaviour that is not acceptable.
Although the familial child sex offences have been drawn more widely than the old incest offences in order to reflect the opportunities for the abuse of children that exist in the family unit, we are content that the primary motivation for the "sex with an adult relative" offences should be concerned with morality and eugenics—gene mutation in children born of same-blood unions.
I appreciate that aunts and uncles are prohibited by law from marrying their nephews and nieces, but that is also true of other categories of relative for example, adoptive parents and their adoptive children. Uncles and aunts have never been included in the incest offences, and we can see no reason to make sexual activity between such relatives a criminal offence now. I regret to say that, for those reasons, I cannot accept the amendment.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am content not to pursue the question of morality. I am happy to leave the noble Baroness and the Government to theirs. On the eugenics matter, I must say that there is no difference between a relationship between an uncle and his niece and a relationship between a young girl and her half-brother. They are exactly the same, and one would expect that, on average, there would be 25 per cent consanguinity.
I am surprised to see that, if we criminalise the relationship between a young girl and her half-brother, which is likely to be perfectly ordinary and innocent and less likely to be abusive than a relationship between an uncle and a niece, the Government will not, on the basis of eugenics, also include the uncle-niece relationship.
I shall not press the amendment and beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment No. 79, as an amendment to Amendment No. 78, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 66 [Sex with an adult relative: consenting to penetration]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment No. 80:
Page 30, line 40, leave out from "sexual" to end of line 9 on page 31 and insert—
"(ba) the other person (B) is aged 18 or over,
(bb) A is related to B in a way mentioned in subsection ( 1 A), and
(bc) A knows or could reasonably be expected to know that he is related to B in that way.
(1A) The ways that A may be related to B are as parent, grandparent. child, grandchild, brother, sister, half-brother, or half-sister.
(1B) Where in proceedings for an offence under this section it is proved that the defendant was related to the other person in any of those ways, it is to be taken that the defendant knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that he was related in that way unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he knew or could reasonably have been expected to know that he was."
Clause 74 [Exceptions to aiding, abetting and counselling]:
[Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 83 and 84:
Page 34, line 25, leave out "or"
Page 34, line 26, at end insert "or
(d) promoting the child's emotional well-being by the giving of advice,"
[Amendment No. 85 not moved.]
Clause 76 [Presumptions about the absence of belief in consent]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 86 to 89:
Page 35, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
Page 35. line 7, at beginning insert "the complainant is to be taken not to have consented to the relevant act unless sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he consented, and"
Page 35, line 7, after "have" insert "reasonably"
Page 35, line 8, leave out "he proves that he did believe it" and insert "sufficient evidence is adduced to raise an issue as to whether he reasonably believed it."
Lord Lucasmoved Amendment No. 90:
Page 35, line 20, at end insert —
"( ) the defendant had committed, or knew that another person had committed, an offence under section 62 in relation to the complainant, and the defendant did not reasonably believe that the complainant was no longer suffering from the effects of the substance that had been administered;"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, on Report, I moved an amendment on this subject. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, said that he quite
744
liked it but it required changing and he would bring something back at a later stage. He has not, so I have. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Amendment No. 90 would extend the list of rebuttable presumptions in Clause 76 to include circumstances in which the defendant has sex with the complainant knowing that he or someone else has intentionally administered a substance to the complainant without the complainant's consent, in order to stupefy them and to facilitate sexual activity, and the complainant is still suffering from the effects of that substance.
The noble Lord is right: he tabled a similar amendment on Report, and the Government undertook to consider it. As my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor said at the time, it is extremely hard to imagine how the defendant could successfully argue, in such circumstances, that he believed in consent. However, in the light of the amendments to Clause 76 that we have tabled, which will change the way in which the question of consent and belief in consent is considered in the circumstances covered by the clause, we need more time to think carefully about whether it is appropriate for such circumstances to be covered.
If we decide that it is appropriate, we will not, unfortunately, be able to accept the amendment, as worded. I acknowledge that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has changed the wording from that in the amendment tabled on Report, but I still cannot accept the amendment, as it stands. The amendment still refers to a defendant's knowledge of the circumstances, which is already dealt with in subsection (1)(d), and the text switches between the present and past tenses. The fact that the amendment is not drafted in the same way as the rest of Clause 76 is a question for parliamentary counsel, and NA, e would need time to consult him. We will return to the question in Committee in another place.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful. I had hoped that the advent of age discrimination legislation would mean that when I got chucked out of this place I could become a parliamentary counsel—clearly not. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Clause 77 [Conclusive presumptions about consent]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendments Nos. 92 and 93:
Page 35, line 29, leave out subsections (1) and (2).
Page 36, line 3, leave out "referred to in subsection (3)"
Clause 78 [Sections 76 and 77: relevant acts]:
[Amendment No. 94 not moved.]
Clause 79 ["Sexual"]:
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas moved Amendment No. 95:
Page 36, line 37, after "consider" insert "in all the circumstances"
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this on Report. I did not manage to get any agreement from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, but I got a long and helpful reply.
I shall explain my remaining concern. The use of the word "sexual" in many places in the Bill troubles me. It is a word that can have many connotations, and ordinary activities can be seen as having a sexual element. If I touch a young girl on her bottom, that can be said to be sexual, whatever my intent, because it is, in common parlance, a sexual gesture or action.
On Report, we explored with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, how that would be dealt with under Clause 79. He gave me a good deal of comfort about how the logic would flow. However, Clause 79(b) says that an activity is sexual if,
"a reasonable person"—
I am glad to see that the "reasonable person" has not left the Bill altogether—
"would consider that it is sexual because of its nature, its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it".
Touching a young girl on her bottom would be sexual, I think. It would be considered sexual by a reasonable person because of its nature. But it might be that if the reasonable person also considered the circumstances or the purpose, all in all the action might not be considered sexual. What concerns me is that the wording here might allow a court to merely consider some of the circumstances, because the final words of the paragraph allow,
"or all or some of those considerations",
rather than taking into account all the relevant circumstances. If all the relevant circumstances were to be taken into account, I should he happy. Hence, the words that I want to insert. I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to give me comfort that I merely have not read the clause as widely as I should have done. I beg to move.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord can be comforted because Clause 79(b) states,
"its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it".
That is broad indeed. However, if it would assist, I am happy to explain more fully. Clause 79 is fundamental to many of the offences in Part I and has been drafted so that it captures only activity that would generally be thought of as sexual.
Our definition requires the jury to use three criteria in its assessment of whether an activity was sexual—namely, the nature of the act itself, the circumstances in which it took place and the purpose of any person in relation to the act. But the first part of the test rules out any activity that a reasonable person would never consider sexual by reason of its very nature—for example, removing a person's shoes. We do not want to capture activity that no reasonable person would consider to be sexual just because the defendant happened to have a secret fetish not known to the victim. Only where the jury thinks that the activity was
746
possibly sexual—for example, touching a person's leg—would the jury need to go on to look at the defendant's state of mind to see if that touching was in fact sexual or whether his purpose or other circumstances mean that it was innocent. Therefore, even the touching mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, of the young lady's bottom could be argued in certain circumstances not to be sexual. But I appreciate and agree with the noble Lord that it may be an uphill battle trying to satisfy anyone that that was so.
Debates on this issue have centred around concerns that the definition may unintentionally draw within its scope those who are touching the private parts of another person for legitimate, non-sexual reasons, such as an emergency medical purpose or to touch a child on the bottom to push it out of the way of a speeding car. We have drafted the definition carefully so as to exclude such touching. But in each case, although the action would satisfy the first part of the test, in that a reasonable person would think that touching a child on the bottom may be sexual, the second part of the test would clearly rule it out because the circumstances of the action, if it was done to avert an accident, are such that no reasonable person would consider it was sexual.
I trust that the example I have just given explains why Amendment No. 16, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, is unnecessary. The definition, as drafted, already requires that where the second stage of the clause needs to come into play, the circumstances can already form part of the consideration of a reasonable person in determining whether the behaviour is sexual.
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Alloway, is not here, so I assume that his amendment will not he moved.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I am grateful for that explanation. I shall certainly read it in Hansard. When the Minister said what the clause stated, she used the word "and" where the clause uses "or". That is the core of my problem with it. As I read the clause, it would be open to the court just to take into account the fact that the action was sexual because of its nature and to disregard the circumstances.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, Clause 79 states:
"For the purposes of this Part, penetration. touching or any other activity is sexual if—
(a) from its nature, a reasonable person would consider that it may (at least) be sexual, and
(b) a reasonable person would consider that it is sexual because of its nature, its circumstances or the purpose of any person in relation to it, or all or some of those considerations".
The "or" which gives the menu is in paragraph (b). It is not in between paragraphs (a) and (b). So there is a two-stage process. Any of those matters in relation to (b) can impinge on any particular sense. I think that the noble Lord has the security he seeks within the way that the clause is now phrased.
Lord Lucas: No, my Lords, he does not. But that may be his fault. I entirely agree that the problem is

747
within paragraph (b) and the menu of "ors". The condition is satisfied if any single one of those is satisfied. Therefore, if,
"a reasonable person would consider that it is sexual because of its nature"
and the answer is, "Yes", paragraph (b) is satisfied. It is unnecessary for a court to take the rest of the conditions into consideration too. That is my concern.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, perhaps I may help the noble Lord further. Paragraph (b) states:
"a reasonable person would consider that it is sexual because of its nature".
Under paragraph (h), that must be considered. The circumstances must then be considered. The menu of "ors" includes,
"or the purpose of any person in relation to it, or all or some of those considerations".
The last part of paragraph (b) states,
"or all or some of those considerations".
So all of that menu may be present or just one or two parts of it. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has everything he needs—I promise.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, I shall read what the noble Baroness said and I shall write if I am further concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 96 not moved.]
Baroness Noakesmoved Amendment No. 97:
After Clause 135, insert the following new clause—
"REVIEW OF OPERATION OF ACT

(1) The Secretary of State shall publish each year a review of the operation of the Act.

(2) The review shall cover the following matters—

(a) conviction rates in respect of the offences contained in the Act, including trends in conviction rates;

(b) sentencing experience in respect of the offences contained in the Act in comparison with the maximum sentences prescribed by the Act.

(3) The review may contain any other matters that the Secretary of State considers to be relevant to an understanding of the effectiveness of the operation of the Act.

(4) The first report under this section shall cover the period from the commencement of the Act to the 31st March following the second anniversary of the commencement of the Act.

(5) A copy of the review shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament."

The noble Baroness said: My Lords, noble Lords will be aware that when one reaches the amendment calling for an annual review, the end is certainly not far off. Amendment No. 97 asks for an annual report on the operation of this Bill once it becomes law. We have debated a similar amendment to this several times. In drafting it I have listened to the concerns expressed by the Minister. For example, the amendment allows for a two-year period of operation of the Act before the reporting requirement kicks in and is less prescriptive than any earlier version.
The only absolute requirements are those set out in subsection (2)—the conviction rates and sentencing experience in respect of the offences contained in the Act. Those data are essential for the most basic of analysis that anyone would reasonably want to carry out in respect of the Act. Therefore, its publication could not be regarded as onerous.
Subsection (3) of the amendment states:
"The review may"—
not "shall"—
"contain any other matters that the Secretary of State considers to be relevant to an understanding of the effectiveness of the operation of the Act".
That is, we are prepared to trust the Government to decide what should be included in a report and how the tasks should be tackled. I understand the Government's reluctance to commit to any specifics in advance, which is why I have drafted the amendment in this way. The Government could report that they were reviewing nothing, but at least they would be open to question. I do not believe that this amendment can be described as onerous or inappropriate. In the spirit with which our discussions on the Bill have been conducted, the amendment is reasonableness itself. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I support this amendment. It is extremely important. Earlier today I drew attention to two conflicting factors—that is, the sexual drive on the one hand and the natural instinct to preserve, support, educate and care for children on the other.
When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer of Thoroton, was at the Dispatch Box at earlier stages of the Bill, he referred several times to the importance of achieving the right balance between convicting the guilty and protecting the innocent. Manifestly, the Government believe that they have achieved the right balance. I said at Committee stage—and, because I could not be here, the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, said it on my behalf at Report stage—that we have honest doubts about whether that has been achieved. My own inquiries indicate that there is a great deal of anxiety among ordinary, decent people working with children.
I urge the Government to accept this amendment. First, it would enable the Government with honour to look again at and if appropriate fine tune some facets of the Bill. Secondly, the effect of the Bill would be to show to people working in the field that the Government want to be reasonable and to get matters right.
Perhaps I may give your Lordships an example. The other day I spoke to a very responsible and serious youth worker with whom I have worked for 17 or 18 years. I said, "What do you think about the present situation in relation to sexual offences?" He said, "The trouble is that this is the only offence in the book in relation to which you are assumed guilty unless you can prove yourself innocent". That may be an illusion; it may be wrong; it may not be the law. However, that perception is held by a number of good people, and it is a perception of which we should be aware. I support the amendment.
8 p.m.
Lord Monson: My Lords, I agree with virtually everything that my noble friend has just said. I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Noakes, on the rewording of her amendment, which, as she said, amounts to reasonableness itself.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I also rise to support the amendment. Having sat on the Government Benches in the position now held by the noble Baroness, I am aware of the reluctance on the part of government departments to accept an amendment such as this. There is huge pressure from officials in the department to say, "We promise the House that we will monitor the position to see how this proposal works", and the reluctance continues. More than once I have succeeded in having my arm twisted by the arguments in this place for the importance of a monitoring report to the House.
I have listened carefully to all the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and others. In particular, the Bill covers much new ground, many sentences have been strengthened and some areas of concern have been eased or weakened. It seems to me that it is now absolutely imperative to ensure not only that there will be a promise to report back any concerns but also that it will be monitored, so that modifications may be made by tabling amendments and making adjustments for newer statutes. It seems to me that there should be an obligation on the Government to make such a report consistent with the amendment set out by my noble friend, which I support.
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, nothing would give me greater pleasure, particularly as it is so late, than to be able to please the noble Baronesses, Lady Noakes and Lady Blatch, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and the noble Lord, Lord Monson. However, I am not quite able to do so.
The Sexual Offences Bill is, of course, a major piece of legislation. We shall need to keep a very close eye on the operation of the new offences following the enactment of the Act. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has quite rightly said that the Bill introduces some very new provisions. It will be important to monitor what happens in relation to those.
However, we are not sure that the best way of doing that is necessarily through a statutory requirement to produce an annual report to Parliament ad infinitum. We would therefore like more time to consider how best to monitor the operation of the Act, and we shall make our position clear as the Bill passes through the Commons. A number of models could be adopted more capable of keeping an eye on policy developments. Bearing in mind the new area, it may be that that will be the better course. We have not been able to settle the best way to follow it through, but we believe that there is a need for it.
750
I therefore invite the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I can certainly assure her that we shall continue to consider the issue and shall make our position plain when the matter reaches the other place.
Baroness Noakes: My Lords, the Minister's point does not surprise me. I shall take her at her word that consideration will continue to be given and that the position will be made clear when the Bill goes to the other place.
However, I want to underline the point that this amendment was not tabled lightly or as a vexatious amendment. However, because of the many difficult issues that have arisen as we have considered the Bill, and recognising that simply agreeing the Bill and turning it into an Act will not wish away those difficulties, I earnestly implore the Minister to use her new position of great authority within the Home Office to ensure that positive thought is given to this matter, so that positive assurances can be given to the other place.
I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 3 [Sexual offences for purposes of Part 2]:
Baroness Scotland of Asthalmoved Amendment N o. 98:
Page 77, line 15, leave out "16" and insert "18"
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, on the last day of Report my noble and learned friend Lord Falconer of Thoroton mistakenly accepted two amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. Those amendments reduced the threshold age of a victim of homosexual offences, which triggers the application of the notification requirements on the defendant, to 16 in England and Wales and 17 in Northern Ireland. I can, of course, understand why the noble Lord was bedazzled. However, I now seek to correct that anomaly.
As I explained in response to these amendments, we hope to establish a review to remove from the register those convicted of entirely consensual homosexual offences with persons aged 16 or over, or 17 or over in Northern Ireland. However, I feel that it is important to address each case individually in order to ensure that we do not remove from the register those who would have committed an offence, had they carried out the act leading to their conviction under the law as it will apply under the Bill, and who therefore remain a risk to the public. Government Amendments Nos. 98 and 102 therefore seek to remove the noble Baroness' amendments from the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley: My Lords, as the Minister rightly said, these technical amendments result from a most uncharacteristic and small mistake by her predecessor, the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. Because of the reassurances that he gave me on that occasion about the way in which those affected by the amendments would be treated, I am very happy to accept the government amendments.
[Amendments Nos. 99 to 101 not moved.]
Baroness Scotland of Asthal moved Amendment No. 102:
Page 82, line 44, leave out "17" and insert "18"
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Baroness Scotland of Asthal.)
On Question, Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
8.9 p.m.
Lord Lester of Herne Hillrose to move, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and to lay new regulations amending regulation 7(3) so as to conform with the EC Framework Directive 2000/78/EC.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Motion raises an issue of law. The Government seek parliamentary approval of the draft regulations to give effect to the obligations imposed on the United Kingdom by the EC Framework Directive 2000/78/EC. Because the Government have chosen to proceed by way of subordinate rather than primary legislation, the power to make those regulations is conferred by Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972. That is a power to transpose the directive faithfully into our domestic law. If the regulations fail to do so because they would allow an employer to discriminate on grounds of sexual orientation in circumstances not permitted by the directive, they are beyond the powers conferred by Parliament in Section 2(2) and are unlawful.
It is Parliament's duty as national lawmaker to legislate in accordance with Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act and the directive. It is the Government's duty to introduce legislation that they consider to be fully compatible with Section 2(2) and the directive.
The legal advice given the Government is confidential. However, Parliament has the great benefit of an independent scrutiny committee—the Joint Select Committee on Statutory Instruments—one of whose main tasks is to draw to the special attention of each House its opinion that there appears to be a doubt whether delegated legislation for which parliamentary approval is being sought is intra vires or that it appears to make some unusual or unexpected use of the powers conferred by the statute under which it is made. Before doing so, the committee gives the Government the opportunity to explain their position. The committee receives not only expert advice but the most expert legal advice of senior counsel. The committee is a vital safeguard and the executive and legislative arms of government would be wise to heed the committee's advice.
752
Speaking for myself, I would not have pursued this Motion if the committee had been satisfied that the draft regulations were intra vires. However, last Friday, the committee determined that the special attention of both Houses should be drawn to them on a number of grounds. The committee's main concerns are with Regulation 7(3), which is the subject of my Motion. Before I address those concerns and explain why the House should give effect to them by supporting the Motion, it may be helpful to set the context.
Article 4(1) of the EC Framework Directive allows in very limited circumstances that a difference of treatment may be justified when a characteristic related to sexual orientation constitutes a,
"genuine and determining occupational requirement. when the objective is legitimate and the requirement is proportionate".
That is known as the GOR—genuine occupational requirement—exception.
In practice that means that an employer who wishes to impose a requirement relating to sexuality—for example, that a person working with lesbian women should be a lesbian, or that a person working with gay men should be gay—must demonstrate that being lesbian or gay is essential for the kind of work which is to be undertaken; that there are good reasons for imposing the requirement; and that the requirement is an appropriate one to apply given those reasons. The requirements apply to applicants for employment as well as to existing employees. The burden of proof lies with the employer.
Regulation 7 deals with the genuine occupational requirement exception, though it has a very strange heading. I have asked the Minister whether he can explain the heading because the whole of the vice of Regulation 7(3) may be explained by the use of the word "etc ". The heading refers to, "genuine occupational requirements etc". I would like to know what is meant by "etc" because all that Regulation 7 is supposed to be dealing with is genuine occupational requirements. It would be helpful to know what that short Latin phrase means.
Regulation 7(1) sets out the circumstances in which the anti-discrimination provisions set out in Regulation 6 do not apply; and Regulation 7(2) sets out, with some minor variations, the genuinely occupational requirement exception. The problem lies not with the GOR exception itself in Regulation 7(2), although it is very wide. The problem arises in the approach taken in the context of religious organisations in the further exception that has been added in Regulation 7(3). It is with this that the Joint Committee has been particularly concerned.
Regulation 7(3) concerns employment for the purposes of an organised religion. It does not have a genuine occupational requirement provision. Instead it creates a broader exception which allows the employer to impose a requirement relating to a person's sexuality either in order to comply with the doctrines of the religion, or because of the nature of the employment and its context, to avoid conflicting with what are described as the,

753
"strongly held convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers".
The paragraph further provides that the exception applies if the potential employee does not meet the requirement, or if on reasonable grounds, the employer is not satisfied that the requirement is met. It is, I think, derived from a provision for which I was partly responsible in ancient history in the Sex Discrimination Act, 1975, long before doctrines such as proportionality or the Equal Treatment Directive were in force.
At paragraph 1.17 of its report, the committee concluded that there is doubt about the compatibility of Regulation 7(3) with the directive. The committee reported that there is therefore a doubt as to whether Regulation 7(3) is intra vires, in other words, that there is any power in Parliament to enact it. In paragraph 1.15 it explains its reasoning in this way. The committee stated:
"Against this background, the committee is not persuaded that the only acts permitted by Regulation 7(3) are those permitted by Article 4.1 of the Directive. Organised religions vary considerably in their structure; the identity of the employer will vary according to the structure of the religion. It seems to the committee wholly within the bounds of possibility that, for example, an employer considering employing a custodian who would, as part of his or her duties, have care of religious artefacts might determine not to employ a worker solely on a ground related to his or her sexual orientation in order to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious beliefs of a significant number of the religion's followers. Even if those beliefs were held only by a minority of the religion's followers, and by those located at only one of the several places where the post holder might be required to work, the discrimination would seem to the committee apparently to be allowed by Regulation 7(3)".
The committee went on:
"Yet it is open to question whether either the intention or effect of Article 4.1 [of the Directive] is to allow the personal beliefs, (even of a majority within an organisation) to determine the position, on the basis that they are part of the context in which the work is to be carried out and, in the view of the employer the factor is decisive. Even if a characteristic of the worker could be said to be a 'genuine and determining occupational requirement' in these circumstances there seems to the committee to be a doubt as to whether the requirement is proportionate as the Directive requires".
That is expressed in the diplomatic language customary to our committees, which means they think that as it stands the regulation exception is legally dubious.
The Select Committee explained that Regulation 7(3)—I now refer to paragraph 1.11 of its report—may,
"permit difference of treatment based on characteristics relating to sexual orientation where the characteristic could not be said to be a 'genuine and determining occupational requirement' which was proportionate".
The committee further explained that Regulation 7(3),
"might allow the employer to impose a discriminatory requirement on an employee or prospective employee whose functions or proposed functions did not promote the core activities of the organised religion concerned".
It is, as the Joint Committee explains, important that Article 4 of the directive be construed strictly, and that the regulations do not provide for exceptions
754
which only a very broad interpretation would permit. It is surely wrong as a matter of principle and, as the Joint Committee explains, of dubious legality, that a person in an administrative or ancillary role within a religious organisation should be excluded from employment because they do, or do not, have a particular sexual orientation. To require a person applying for the position of a church cleaner to be heterosexual when that has absolutely nothing to do with whether he or she can wield a mop and bucket not only flies in the face of reason, but is contrary to the express terms of the directive. It is not just cleaners but librarians and a wide variety of others who will be affected—in both paid and unpaid, voluntary work.
The committee went on at paragraph 1.20 of the report to conclude that the position of those affected by Regulation 7(2) and (3) is uncertain. It is not only the possibility that the regulations are ultra vires which should concern this House but that they are unclear on their face. That is a proposition which I should have thought would appeal to all sides of the House—law should be certain both on its face and in its effect. Regulation 7(3) is neither. It is unclear which employers will be able to take advantage of the exemption—churches certainly, religiously inspired hospices, possibly—and which employees will be subject to it—ministers of religion certainly, church cleaners, possibly. This is a profoundly unsatisfactory state of affairs which will lead to expensive and distressing litigation—litigation which will be particularly distressing as it will inevitably involve a public analysis of the very private business of a person's sexuality.
The Government may argue—I hope that they do not—that the lack of clarity in the regulations could be remedied by departmental guidance. That would be highly unsatisfactory. Not only would it be an implicit admission that the regulations are not themselves sufficiently clear—which they should be—but such guidance would not be binding on courts and tribunals. It would in fact be contrary to the principle of legal certainty.
My final substantive reason for pursuing the Motion is also one to which the Joint Committee has drawn the attention of this House in paragraph 1.25 of its report. The committee considered that, in the light of Regulation 7(3), the department would have been prudent to undertake further consultation with representatives of persons likely to be adversely affected by Regulation 7(3) before the regulations were laid before Parliament.
When the original version of the regulations was published for consultation purposes in October 2002, there was no Regulation 7(3). It is reasonable to presume, therefore, that the drafters of the regulations considered that the much narrower Regulation 7(2) provided the only legitimate form of exception. Regulation 7(3) appeared only after the consultation and was included expressly to meet the concerns of those who argued that the regulations should not seek to meddle with matters of religious doctrine. There appears to have been no attempt to consult further with those who will be adversely affected by the

755
inclusion of Regulation 7(3) even though, as officials who gave evidence to the Joint Committee admitted, there would be such people.
I have asked the Minister to deal in his reply with a Question that I tabled for Written Answer asking which of the organisations that made the representations about the draft regulations supported the amendment to Regulation 7 to include the obnoxious Regulation 7(3). The default in consultation is even more regrettable when, as I have indicated and as the Joint Committee has explained, that regulation is unclear in its terms and effect.
Those of us who had strong doubts about the validity of the exception in Regulation 7(3), because of its vagueness and over-breadth, were not at all surprised by the unanimous conclusions of the Joint Committee. We hoped and expected that the Government would reconsider and lay fresh draft regulations before Parliament that followed their original version, on which there was extensive public consultation. We are dismayed that the Government have not done so.
Unless we are able to persuade the Government in this debate. what will be the practical consequences? I shall deal with them briefly. The regulations will become law. They will bear no brand of illegality on their forehead. Unless and until legal proceedings are brought to establish the cause of invalidity and to have Regulation 7(3) annulled, it will remain effective as a sweepingly broad exemption clause apparently permitting a religious body to refuse to employ not a priest but a cleaner or messenger because of their sexuality. In other words, Regulation 7(3) will encourage unlawful discrimination even though, as I am sure that we shall be told, that is not the Government's intention.
I have no doubt—I stake my professional judgment on it—that the courts would eventually decide that Regulation 7(3) was contrary to the principles of legal certainty and proportionality. Either the regulation will be struck down, or it will be drastically read down. But why on earth is it necessary to have recourse to the costly and protracted procedures of challenge in the courts, when it is so easy in this case for the Government and Parliament to enact legislation that avoids the vices of undue vagueness and over-breadth?
I believe that the answer to the puzzle of why the Government have not moved, in the light of the Joint Committee report, is a mixture of confused thought and political obstinacy. The Government and—I am sorry to have to say it—especially the Prime Minister and his advisers were persuaded at the end of the consultation by some religious bodies, including some even in the Church of England, I regret to say, to widen Regulation 7(3) even though it was both unnecessary and unlawful. It was unnecessary because the original version of Regulation 7 contained sufficiently wide exceptions, and unlawful because it authorised sexual orientation discrimination in circumstances not required by the needs of the particular post or the context in which the jobholder would work.
756
I very much hope that the Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect and feel sadness that he has to do as he is doing, will be able to tell the House that the Government have decided that their first thoughts are to be preferred to their second. If not, it will be our intention on these Benches to seek the opinion of the House, still hoping to make a law that will not mislead or be an abuse of the powers conferred in the 1972 Act. If we are unable to muster sufficient support against the Government's whipping, especially at this late hour, I predict with the utmost solemnity—one does not lightly do so in public—as a practising lawyer of almost 40 years' standing that the Government will face ultimate defeat and humiliation in the courts after costly and effective litigation.
Moved, That this House invites Her Majesty's Government to withdraw the draft Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and to lay new regulations amending Regulation 7(3) so as to conform with the EC Framework Directive 2000/78/EC.—(Lord Lester of Herne Hill.)
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I believe that the regulations are intended to put into effect the agreed EU directive banning discrimination in employment on several grounds, including religion or belief and sexual orientation. I have in the past attempted to introduce Private Member's Bills aimed at outlawing discrimination in employment relating to sexual orientation but, for various reasons, those have not succeeded. With these regulations, it seemed that we were in the process of correcting what many of us saw as a continuing injustice. However, I have been lobbied by my own union, Amicus, because it feels that the exemptions proposed could make things worse for gay and lesbian people in religious organisations. As I understand it, there are major exclusions which would exclude faith organisations from having to comply. Would this mean that someone who is not a practising member of a given faith could be rejected for a job? Could a lesbian or gay employee be discriminated against in the event of co-religionists taking exception to his or her continued employment, simply because it offended their religious susceptibilities? Surely that would not be acceptable. I cannot believe that that was the Government's intention.
Further, can employers deny a same-sex partner access to a benefit such as a survivor's benefit in an occupational pension scheme if they specify that this benefit is restricted to married partners only? We have already debated this injustice in the House. There have been some really awful cases in which one partner to a long-term relationship dies, and the other does not benefit from a survivor's pension. The surviving partner also risks losing the home in which they lived, because inheritance tax, which would not apply to a married couple, must be paid. I had hoped that these regulations would put right some of these injustices, but this does not appear to be the case.
I received briefing from several organisations other than my own union. The Law Society says:
"In the absence of any limiting words in Regulation 7(3)(b)(I), we consider that a church which asserts, as a matter of doctrine, that homosexuality is a sin will be able to deny employment to

757
homosexuals in any capacity whatever, without reference to the nature of the job. This is hard to reconcile with the purpose of the Directive".
The Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments—the text of whose report has been explained to us in some detail this evening by the noble Lord, Lord Lester— clearly believes that Regulation 7(3) breaches the European Directive.
I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, and I hope that in the light of this debate, the Government will feel inclined to accept what he has said. We cannot leave interpretation to tribunals. Regulations must be clear.
8.30 p.m.
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, there is a fundamental problem. There are human rights, and there are corporate rights. Everyone has supported the idea that faith communities can choose the people they employ. In Hitler's Germany, he destroyed faith communities, and the state decided who they could employ. It is a fundamental tenet of modern democracy that the communities within the state, be they trade unions or Churches, can decide whom to admit. The state does not decide that. My Lords, you may disagree with them; you may find them a narrow, funny lot—but it is their right. The noble Baroness sat on the European committee, as I did, together with many European Union members. England is not alone in this. A lot of other people have said that they are not prepared to accept that a faith community should be dictated to by the state—by people who have no commitment to their religion. I do not know what the religion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, is, but I do not think that it is mine.
It is crucial that we allow derogation in this matter. It is being allowed in Germany, Ireland and a lot of other countries. Why should we not do it? People do not have to be cleaners in the Anglican church or the Jewish synagogue. You may think that they are bizarre or from the Planet Zor, but they are entitled. If we do not watch out, we will stray into the secularisation seen in France in the late 19th century, when the state started to dictate to the Church what it could do. They could not have monks or things like that.
Therefore, it is terribly important that the Government stand firm on this issue, together with the governments of a number of European Union countries. I do not have the advantage of the research team of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, so I cannot furnish my argument with quotes, but corporations within the state have a fundamental right to their own identity and we must support that.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords, I thank the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, for tabling the regulations and the noble Lord, Lord Lester, for his untiring work on behalf of human rights. The Church of England, in common with many other Churches and faith communities in our country, strongly supports the creation of a legal framework to safeguard basic rights and to promote dignity, equality
758
and respect for all members of society. The law cannot by itself change attitudes, but as we have seen in the past with legislation against race and gender discrimination, it can helpfully set the boundaries for acceptable behaviour.
It is an undoubted anomaly that discrimination against Jews and Sikhs has up to now been unlawful because they are ethnic groups as well as a religious community, whereas discrimination against Muslims, Hindus or Christians has not been. It is also wrong that prejudiced views about sexual orientation have been able to deny people employment. The two sets of regulations before us tonight address those problems and I welcome them.
They both, inevitably, raise particular issues for faith communities in their own internal affairs. That is not a code for saying that we seek special treatment. It is simply an echo of the assertion of paragraph 24 of the preamble of the European directive in relation to the status of Churches, religious associations and communities. That paragraph continues:
"With this in view, Member States may maintain or lay down specific provisions on genuine, legitimate and justified occupational requirements which might be required for carrying out an occupational activity".
To put it more simply, the directive recognises that Churches and faith communities need to maintain their character and identity and sometimes to be able to set requirements which should not arise in the case of a secular employer. In respect of the religious discrimination regulations, that much is surely common ground. Religious organisations self-evidently need to be able to safeguard their identity and ethos without the fear of constant litigation which is such a feature of our modern society. Where, for example, being a Christian, a Muslim or a Mormon is a genuine occupational requirement, the regulations now permit what in other circumstances would constitute unlawful discrimination.
In relation to sexual orientation, the arguments, unsurprisingly, become more contentious. There has been a good deal of misrepresentation in the press about the position of a wide range of faith communities, to the extent of it suggesting that we are keen to dismiss gay clergy and staff. Perhaps I may briefly explain why the original draft regulations published last October caused much concern and why we believe that the new regulations are better and more compatible with the directive. It can be expressed very simply. Churches and faith communities need to retain a broad measure of freedom to determine their own requirements in relation to the sexual conduct—not orientation—of those who wish to serve or represent them. What those requirements should be is already a matter of lively debate in many faith communities as we ponder how to respond to the rapid changes in attitudes and ethics that our society has witnessed in recent decades. But that debate is surely something which the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church, the black majority churches, the Muslims and the very many other faith communities in our diverse society must each be allowed to have in their own way. I urge the House to recognise that there are genuine

759
issues of religious liberty here. If that is accepted the question is how best to safeguard that liberty in the way the noble Lord, Lord Pilkington, has just described, while providing proper protection against the discrimination which gay and lesbian people have had to endure.
A difficulty immediately arises as a result of the varying ways in which sexual orientation can be used. As regards the Church of England—and I believe that this will be true for many of the Christian denominations and other faiths—there are no circumstances in which we would wish to be able to discriminate against people on the grounds of their orientation as such. I feel like repeating that.
We do not have posts or orders where there is a requirement to be heterosexual, or indeed homosexual. But we do have some posts and orders where, irrespective of sexual orientation, be it heterosexual or homosexual, the requirement remains for marriage or abstinence. Our difficulty is that under the regulations that sort of requirement would be open to challenge as unlawful discrimination if it were not for Regulation 7(3). The tribunals are unlikely to recognise a clear distinction between orientation and behaviour manifesting orientation. That is the difficulty.
Regulation 7(2) by itself does not give the protection we need because it applies only where being of a particular orientation is an occupational requirement. All of our posts in the Church of England are open to people of any orientation provided that they are prepared to observe the disciplines of the Church where that is required. We have no intention of discriminating against anyone simply because of their sexual orientation.
It was because of the inadequacy, as it was perceived, of Regulation 7(2) that the Archbishops Council of the Church of England, together with many other faith groups, expressed such concern at the earlier draft regulations. We welcome the way in which the Government have listened and responded. It is not that, as a Member of another place said, Downing Street caved in to the prejudices of extreme religious organisations. I doubt even the most unfriendly critic of the Church of England could level that description against it—an extreme religious organisation.
Finally and briefly I say a word about the doubt raised by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments to which the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has referred as regards the lawfulness of Regulation 7(3) under the directive. Ultimately, that is a matter for the courts who would no doubt have to struggle to reconcile some of the internal inconsistencies within the directive. On the basis of advice from our standing counsel, Sir Anthony Hammond QC, in our view Regulation 7(3) fully meets the requirements of Article 4(1) of the directive.
In particular the regulation is confined to employment for purposes of an organised religion. It fulfils a legitimate objective—protecting the right to religious freedom—and it is proportionate. It is emphatically not about pandering to prejudices. The
760
provision comes into play only where doctrine and strongly held religious convictions are at stake. I cannot believe that that religious doctrine comes into play in the employment of cleaners or librarians—we do not employ many of the latter in the Diocese of Blackburn: they would be a very rare category indeed.
I am sure that the courts and tribunals will be able to see through spurious defences. Not to provide protection for genuine religious convictions would risk the law engaging in a collision course against the consciences of many who take a conservative view, with a small "c", on sexual ethics. That would be a very worrying development and not one that I believe would prove beneficial in the end to these regulations or to the well-being of the diversity, culture and religion of our nation.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, can the right reverend Prelate help me on one matter? Where in Regulation 7(3) are words of limitation which require the principle of proportionality to be applied or require that the discrimination should only be in relation to what is a genuine occupational requirement?
8.45 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Blackburn: My Lords. an amateur is here in conflict with a lawyer. For me the importance of the matter is to comply with the doctrines of religion and religious convictions. That is the main point for us. I was going on to say before the noble Lord intervened that the present drafting would not have been exactly our choice. However, it attempts to strike a fair balance between the rights of individuals and the freedom of faith communities to apply their own beliefs and convictions in relation to those who serve and represent them .
I urge the House to resist the Motion and to approve both sets of regulations.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords,…
Lord Avebury: My Lords, surely the noble Baroness is not winding up?
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, no, I intended to speak—I am not winding up. I would never upset the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
The Motion is to withdraw the first of the two regulations that we are considering this evening. The regulations stem from when the Government decided to sign up to Article 13 of the Treaty of Amsterdam in 1997. For the first time that gave the EU power to legislate in the area of religious and sexual orientation discrimination. Prior to that it could not happen. The previous Conservative government consistently vetoed that. Giving power to the EU to dictate national Government policy in such a sensitive area was always bound to be a minefield. It has proved to be so. One of the first acts of the Labour Government in 1997 was to sign up to Article 13. Three years later,

761
in October 2000 they agreed to the EU Council directive that established a general framework for equal treatment in employment.
Under pressure from religious groups at home, and led by the Irish, the Government were able to obtain concessions in the directive to protect religion. Those concessions were not as wide-ranging as could have been wished for, but they went some way towards recognising the different considerations that apply to religious employers.
We now have these regulations that are intended to implement the directive. Given that the Government have helped to obtain the concessions for religious groups, it is disappointing that they have not made the religious exemptions as clear and as firm as they might have. As with all badly drafted laws, as the noble Lord, Lord Lester, has said, it will take much litigation to establish the boundaries of religious protection. That is as true in the religion regulations—the next matter that we shall debate—as it is in the sexual orientation regulations. We would not have started from here if all of that had not happened. However, we are here.
I have listened carefully to the arguments advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, inviting your Lordships to disapprove of the sexual orientation regulations. I have also had the advantage of studying in advance the letter that he wrote to my noble friend Lord Cope of Berkeley summarising those arguments. I have some sympathy for the strictures about the adequacy, or indeed the suitability, of the regulations. However, these Benches cannot support the rejection of the regulations, which, if rejected, would strip out at least the religious exemptions from the orientation regulations. Despite their shortcomings, to reject the regulations would be akin to throwing the baby out with the bath water. Without them there would be nothing whatever to protect the very people that the regulations are intended to protect.
The nub of the noble Lord's argument is in relation to Regulation 7. Paragraphs (1) and (2) enable an employer, in effect, to discriminate in any case where, as the noble Lord explained, the employee's sexual orientation is a genuine and determining occupational requirement. In his letter to my noble friend, the noble Lord, Lord Lester, conceded that Regulations 7(1) and 7(2) were uncontroversial and squarely within the language of the directive.
However, it is Regulation 7(3) which is objected to by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. That paragraph was not included in the original draft regulations circulated for consultation last October. I wonder at whose behest and on the basis of what representations it was added. Regulation 7(3) permits what in effect amounts to discrimination if the employer is an organised religion and the discrimination as to sexual orientation is to comply with the doctrines of that religion or to avoid conflict with the strongly held beliefs of a significant number of that religion's followers.
In the brief which many of your Lordships undoubtedly will have received, the Law Society asked whether a charity connected to an organised religion
762
would enjoy the same exemption. Perhaps the Minister could tell the House when he replies. What a fertile ground for litigation that phraseology contains in defining an organised religion, the doctrines of that religion, the strongly held beliefs of followers and, last but not least, how many followers make a significant number. What is an organised religion? Will the courts or, worse still, as the noble Baroness suggested, employment tribunals, have to decide on the ecclesiastical purity of some of the weird and wonderful sects that thrive in our community? I name no names for fear of giving offence, but your Lordships could each undoubtedly think of a so-called religious movement which cannot really be dignified with the name of a religion. What are their beliefs, and how strong is "strongly held"? What is a significant number? A significant number of Catholics will be substantially more than a significant number of the Seventh-Day Adventists, or is the number to be gauged in percentage terms, in which case should the percentage not be defined in the regulation which should refer to at least "x" per cent of the religion's followers?
The objection by the noble Lord, Lord Lester—to reduce it, if I may, in my words to its simplest terms—is that it would permit discrimination not only on the grounds of the sexual orientation of, for example, clergy and teachers but also on the grounds of the sexual orientation of an office clerk or, as he said, the cleaning lady or caretaker who may never come into contact with students or worshippers in the course of their duties.
I am certain that every Member of your Lordships' House would strongly disapprove of what might be described as bigotry and unreasonable, indeed, unreasoning, blind prejudice. However, those of us—I include myself in this number—who wish to protect the rights of various minorities, in this case those of homosexual orientation, must not at the same time overlook the rights of other members of the community. There are those who find homosexuality objectionable. I certainly do not include myself or, indeed, I think, anyone in this House. Although I am a very religious person I certainly would not accept the word "abomination", which is used in Leviticus. I think that is quite disgraceful.
We may not agree with such a prejudiced view but—this is the important part—as the regulation carefully stipulates that the employer's belief must be reasonable, I believe that there is both protection for the employee and a quite difficult defence for the employer. Those same people may similarly want to object and to discriminate against persons who live together, in the very quaint Victorian phrase, "without the benefit of clergy".
Paradoxically, the regulations prohibit discrimination on the grounds of the sexual orientation of an employee but do not prohibit discrimination on the grounds that the employee is living with a member of the opposite sex to whom he or she is not married. That in itself is discriminatory,

763
but typical of the biased way in which this type of anti-discrimination legislation is framed. All employees are equal but some are more equal than others.
A few moments ago I referred to fertile grounds for litigation in defining the operation of Regulation 7. If we go by the precedent of previous anti-discriminatory regulations, I fear that these regulations, regardless of what I am sure are their good intentions, will land employers with claims for substantial compensation because of actions over which they have absolutely no control. The same Law Society brief very strongly shares that view.
Leaving aside the religious defence, if a fellow employee refuses to work with a colleague because of his sexual orientation, or if that employee in the course of an argument uses abusive language about the other employee's sexual orientation, then there is little doubt but that a claim for damages against the employer will follow. There is a difference in principle between discrimination on the grounds of a person's sex or race and this new type of discrimination for which we are being asked to legislate today. An employer would have no doubt about a employee's sex—at least, I hope he would not—or, in most cases, his or her race; but there would be no way that an employer could be certain of the sexual orientation of an employee or a potential employee. The same would apply to his or her religion. We could therefore find a person being refused employment or dismissed on perfectly normal grounds, and then launching a claim that it was a case of discrimination on the grounds of his sexual orientation—of which the employer was not even aware.
Your Lordships will not have overlooked the fact that under this type of legislation, once the employee has established a mildly plausible case of the possibility of discrimination, that employer is faced with the almost impossible task of proving the negative. In following these directives, we have imported the concept of guilty until proved innocent.
To sum up, we find these regulations to be poorly and ambiguously drafted but we think that they are the best of a bad job, and certainly the best that the Government have offered to us.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, has expressed the opinion that Regulation 7(3) is ultra vires the European Communities Act. I certainly would not dream of arguing a point of law with the noble Lord. There is another law, however, called Duggan's Law, which says that for every expert opinion there is an equal and opposite opinion. In this case, the opposite opinion is expressed by Professor Leigh of the University of Durham, whom I am quite sure the noble Lord, Lord Lester, recognises as a leading human rights academic, as well as being an adviser to governments at home and abroad. He argues:
"It is overly dogmatic to argue, as the Joint Committee has, that Regulation 7(3) is ultra vires the European Communities Act. The Government has sought a compromise between two strongly held positions. In doing so, it has followed models of United Kingdom legislation already in force, notably, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 and the Sex Discrimination (Gender Reassignment) Regulations 1999".
764
He continues:
"Similar exceptions from sexual orientation discrimination laws for religious bodies can be found the whole world over, from states in Australia and the United States of America and Ireland".
Deplorable as discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation undoubtedly is, respect must be given to the genuinely and sincerely held beliefs of others. Surely we should not trample over those rights on account of an academic, technical argument about the validity of the exception.
In the circumstances, if the noble Lord, Lord Lester, presses his Motion to a Division—he said that he probably would—we will not be able to support him. Similarly, and with equal reluctance, we will support the passage of these regulations. We very much hope that the adverse consequences about which I have spoken, and which the Law Society fears, will not materialise.
I cannot do better than to conclude by quoting from a brief that undoubtedly many noble Lords received from the Evangelical Alliance. It states:
"Although we recognise that the Regulations as laid before may cause some difficulties to faith groups across the UK in coining years, we consider that the Sexual Orientation Regulations are the best we can hope for and expect at this present time".
I agree.
9 p.m.
Lord Alli: My Lords—
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords—
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, we have had a contribution from the Bishops' Benches, and I am sure that noble Lords look forward to hearing from another Member on those Benches, but perhaps we could speak in some order. I call on my noble friend Lord Alli, followed by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and then the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester.
Lord Alli: My Lords, I support the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester, to disapprove these regulations. I sincerely urge the Government to withdraw them and to think again. The noble Lord, Lord Lester, set out very clearly and in detail what he and others consider are the faults of the regulations. My principal concern, and the one that I will address, is the role of the Church of England and other organised religions in this debate.
I find it impossible to believe that the Government—one committed to fairness and equality—should seek to allow the continued discrimination against gay men and women if those who seek to discriminate against them believe in God. What an irony: if you are God-fearing, you can weed out, discriminate and persecute gay men and women, and, if you are not, you cannot. Frankly, the exceptions in Regulation 7(3) are a joke. They make a mockery of equality legislation. My noble friends on the Front Bench should seriously reconsider those provisions.

765
I believe in God and am fully prepared to put my head above the parapet. I do so to condemn those in the Church of England and other organised religions who seek to use the lives of ordinary gay men and women as a crucible in which to play out their own internal theological disputes. How can it be sensible that, on the one hand, the Church is about to appoint a gay bishop, and, on the other, it is about to sack gay staff.
We see the way in which a tradition in the Church seeks to persecute gay men and women. Even today, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford is under intense pressure following his appointment of Dr Jeffrey John as the Bishop of Reading. The fact that he is celibate is immaterial because he has a history of homosexuality. That is enough for his critics to want him out. It seems irrelevant that he might be the best man for the job.
I will take some convincing that these regulations will not be unfairly used to persecute good men and women. I fully accept the right of the Christian Church to appoint Christians to its ministry, of a mosque to appoint a Muslim, or a temple to appoint a Hindu. That is their right, and it is one that the Employment Equality Regulations protect. But I cannot accept that it is right for an organised religion to dictate that those in its employment should or should not be of a particular sexuality—no more than that they should or should not be of a particular race.
I invite noble Lords to imagine the case of the mythical librarian in an evangelical theological college. She is a Christian with deeply held convictions, but she is also a lesbian.
Do we really want to sanction regulations that would require her either to be untrue to herself or to risk losing her job? If we were to approve these regulations, that is precisely what we would be doing, and it would be shameful.
It seems to me that the Church of England, whose representations to government appear to have been influential in bringing about the addition of Regulation 7(3), is seeking to do a dangerous thing. In its support of the extension of the circumstances in which it would be lawful to discriminate on the basis of sexuality, it is effectively absenting itself from normal civil society.
Not so long ago, being a Roman Catholic in this country led to persecution and execution. When we had a Roman Catholic monarchy, the same was true for Protestants. Thankfully, we now live in more tolerant times; but the Church history of this country in the 16th century is still being played out in other parts of the world. How can we try to advocate decent civil society in other countries when we legitimise the practice of discrimination against gay men and women by religious institutions?
What is the difference between an absolute right to remove someone from their job because they are gay and an absolute right to put somebody in gaol because they are gay? Shall I tell noble Lords what the difference is? The difference is in the degree of
766
prejudice in the law. This feels more like a provision dreamed up by the Taliban than one suitable for a mature democracy.
I recognise that this country has an established Church. It is represented in this House. However, I say to the Lords spiritual on the Bishops' Benches that if they try to use the privilege that they enjoy—the extraordinary privilege that we all enjoy—of law-making, by using the civil law as a means of exempting themselves or their religion from the norms and values of civil society, they will have diminished their role in society. Gay people may be a minority in society, but so too are those who actively profess a faith.
Each is entitled to protection, but not at the expense of the rights and dignity of the other. That is what equality means. Today we have the opportunity to demonstrate that this House is a modern Chamber, one that acknowledges that religion has a place in the national debate, but not a dominant or superior one.
We have the opportunity, in supporting the noble Lord's Motion, to influence the kind of society we, and others, want to live in. That society recognises and celebrates differences, and does not allow irrelevant factors to determine a person's life chances. One's sexuality is an integral part of one's identity. It is what makes us human.
I give my noble friends on the Front Bench due warning that I will oppose these regulations, and I will do all in my power to try to convince them to change their minds. This is a Government of which I am proud, but this law is a huge stain on a worthy record on equality. I have never voted against my party or Government, but in all honesty, noble Lords cannot expect a turkey to vote for Christmas, no matter how important it is in the Christian calendar.
I support the noble Lord's Motion to disapprove these regulations, and I very much hope that the Government will think again.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, on an issue of such important principle as this, I hope that many other Lords on the Benches opposite have listened to what the noble Lord, Lord Alli, has said and would put principle above party. This is not a party matter; it is a fundamental question of the freedom of gay people in our community.
I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, has been illogical about this. First, she condemned these regulations on the grounds that they will cause endless problems in the tribunal, in the interpretation of the words here such as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, mentioned several times. All of the phrases that occur in Regulation 7(3) will cause major difficulties in the tribunal and endless arguments. At the end of the day, as my noble friend says, it is likely that the whole of Regulation 7(3) will be struck down. What are we going through this for? Why create such a lot of work for lawyers in the employment tribunal, when we know what the result will be at the end of the day?

767
In spite of the noble Baroness's reference to one individual who has expressed a contrary point of view, I prefer to accept the opinion of my noble friend and of the Select Committee. The article on which the employment regulations are supposed to he based explicitly rules out,
"discrimination on another ground".
That is at the end of 4.2, and it has not been mentioned yet.
It is reasonable that differences in treatment may exist if there is a genuine occupational requirement, but, with great respect to the noble Baroness, we would not have had the minefield that she mentioned if the Government had stuck with their first thought and confined themselves to Regulations 7(1) and 7(2).
The directive envisages circumstances other than genuine occupational requirement in which difference of treatment on grounds of age—but not for any of the other characteristics mentioned—are permissible. Specifically, the directive does not allow for differences in treatment on grounds of sexual orientation. other than the GOR. Therefore, the directive cannot be held to allow the managers of employment for the purposes of an organised religion to apply either of the criteria in 7(3) of the sexual orientation regulations.
It is not an answer to say, as Barbara Roche did in her letter to Stonewall, that the expression,
"for the purposes of an organised religion".
had a limited meaning. She acknowledged that faith schools might come under the provision. I imagine that religious NGOs, aid organisations, missionary societies and newspapers such as the Catholic Herald, the Church Times and Q-News would all be able to make a case. if they chose to do so. The exact scope of the exemption is unclear because there is no immediately relevant case law on the words,
"for the purposes of an organised religion",
which, I believe, were taken from Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. I have been informed of two cases under the old Section 4 of the Race Relations Act 1976 at employment appeal tribunal level, which dealt with employment for the purposes of a private household. In both cases, the expression "for the purposes of" was given a broad interpretation. I suggest that it may read across into this order. In any case, it will give rise to many cases in which it will be claimed that it does.
The point is not the number of organisations that will be covered by the expression. Article 4.1 does not allow any discrimination on such grounds, contrary to the assertions of the DTI in its evidence to the Select Committee. It is certainly true that the doctrines of certain religions criticise people who are gay, but I am not aware of anything in the Bible or the Qur'an that says that employers should not hire gay people. That was confirmed by Mr Magyar of the DTI, who said, in answer to a question from the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, in the Select Committee:
"We are not aware of any cases in which religious doctrine requires a post to be filled by persons of a particular orientation".
768
Therefore, it is impossible to satisfy the tests in 7(3)(b)(i), because the doctrines of no religion say anything about the employment of people of a given sexual orientation.
The second leg of 7(3)(b) is where the nature of the employment and the context in which it is carried out are such that hiring somebody of a particular sexual orientation would conflict, as has been quoted, with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers. When my noble friend Lord Russell asked Mr Magyar which part of the directive he relied on for the wording of 7(3)(a), he answered that it was in Article 4.1, which deals with the GOR, which is a different matter. If we agreed to the provision, we would allow the bigotry and prejudice of some of a religion's followers to dictate its employment policy. I think that it would be the first time in any western country when anti-gay conduct has been approved by legislation.
If the argument is that the sacred books are highly critical of gays, so they are of many other human characteristics, such as wanting something that one has not got. The exception—
9.15 p.m
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt. Has the noble Lord considered that various other members of the European Union are actually implementing this directive?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord was under a misapprehension. I did not intend to refer to his speech but I shall do so now that he has invited me to elaborate on his remarks. He said that trade unions or Churches may decide who to admit to their communities and that faith communities should not be dictated to by any state. We are not concerned here—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: My Lords, I asked the noble Lord a simple question. is the noble Lord prepared to accept that other members of the European Union—for example, Ireland or Germany—have accepted the amendments to the directive. I do not want him to comment on my speech, which was minor and neither here nor there. I just want him to answer my question. What is the rest of the European Union doing?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I do not believe—but I am subject to correction if I am wrong—that any other European country has, in its regulations, an equivalent of Regulation 7(3). I may be wrong—
Lord Pilkington of Oxenford: You are wrong.
Lord Avebury:—and I dare say that your Lordships could refer me to regulations in Saudi Arabia perhaps where equivalent provisions exist.
Lord Pilkington of Oxen ford: How unfair.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, but in any case, with respect, we are legislating for the United Kingdom and

769
not for Ireland or Germany. We should therefore not be guided by what has happened in other countries, but we should stick to what should be done in the United Kingdom.
The exception,
"emerged during the recent consultations on our draft regulations",
as the Minister told Stonewall. Specifically, it came almost verbatim from paragraph 24 of the Church of England response to the DTI consultation document, which called for the insertion in Section 5 of these regulations, the words:
"Nothing in parts II to IV of these Regulations shall render unlawful anything done for the purposes or in connection with an organised religion so as to comply with the doctrines of the religion or avoid offending religious susceptibilities of a significant number of its followers".
That explains where the words came from, to answer the question posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller. It got there by Church of England lobbying which, as the noble Lord, Lord Alli, explained, was not subject to any consultation.
However, as soon as I saw these words I wrote to Mr David Tredinnick, the chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments, pointing out that they were outside the scope of the directive and asking whether Standing Order 151 in the Commons and Standing Order 74 in your Lordships' House, where they deal with the vires of a statutory instrument, should make specific reference to orders which go beyond the scope of their parent European directives. Mr Tredinnick replied that standing orders did not need alteration because these powers were already contained in the existing wording. Indeed, I am sure that they are, but the debate in your Lordships' House today emphasises the importance of putting this on the face of the standing orders.
As my noble friend said, the Select Committee has now reported that there is doubt as to whether Regulation 7(3) is intra vires. It draws these regulations to the special attention of both Houses in very strong and, I think, unprecedented language. I am open to correction, but I do not think that the Select Committee has ever had occasion to use this power before. It also criticises the Government for consulting on Regulation 7(3) with only a small number of representatives of Churches and not with representatives of any body which is likely to be affected by the changes.
When these orders were considered by the Joint Select Committee on 3rd June, it had to make do with photocopies because the printed versions had not yet been published. The Select Committee has done very well to get its report out quickly, but it was available on the web only late on Friday afternoon. That has not given your Lordships time to consult with the representatives of those who may be affected in the light of the committee's strictures.
As with much of the business of the House these days, the Government's idea seems to be to pile it on with the minimum time for consideration, hoping that shock and awe will eliminate legitimate objections. I
770
hope that they have miscalculated on these regulations and I look forward to supporting my noble friend in the Division Lobby.
The Lord Bishop of Worcester: My Lords, although we on these Benches are not a party and are not whipped, your Lordships will understand that it is with some hesitation that anyone speaks against the very strong representation of not only the Archbishops' Council of my own church but also the leadership of many other denominations and faith communities.
The words of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn undoubtedly reflect what the Government have heard from our Church. I suspect that they reflect the views of perhaps the overwhelming majority of bishops, and I am sure that the House will weigh them in that light. In speaking at this point, therefore, I do not seek to give to my words and arguments the kind of weight of support that he rightly would claim as his. However, I hope that the House will understand that there are occasions on which it is quite important to place on the record of a debate such as this the view of a minority, of whom I am glad to be one. I take the view that the representations made on behalf of my own Church are not proportionate to the problem with which they seek to deal. I shall support the noble Lord's Motion.
There are in the Church and in religious communities two debates of very great significance. First, there is the debate about sexual ethics. That debate needs to be conducted with respect and coolness, particularly in view of the nature of the subject. I do not for one moment attribute prejudice or bigotry to those who disagree with me in that debate. There are significant arguments with which it is important for the mind of the Church to engage. We are doing so, and we are seeking every opportunity to enable others to consider their positions on this topic. I want that process to continue.
Secondly, there is another less prominent debate that I suspect may be more important in the long term; namely, the debate in religious communities about the human rights tradition. I believe that that is a very important development in modern society. I also believe that it is frequently pursued to the neglect of the rights of communities in society and with an interest only in the rights of individuals. To that extent, I have much sympathy with those who say that, as a balancing factor, it is important to attend to the rights of religious communities to maintain their own characters and their own lives.
However, there are two reasons why at the end of the day I still find myself regretting the form in which this particular regulation has been brought before the House and supportive of the Motion tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. First. there is the phrase about the beliefs of a significant number of the followers of a religion. I have said, and I repeat, that I do not hold in disrespect those who out of Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Sikh or Hindu conviction believe that the conduct of sexual life has to be within marriage, or by abstinence. However, I find unacceptable the use of

771
phrases such as "beliefs" and "significant number", which open the door to some kinds of campaigning about which all of us would wish to be ashamed.
I have to say to your Lordships that it is not only in religious communities that such campaigns can be mounted. In Worcester, I have watched the British National Party clothe itself in religion, precisely for the purpose of undertaking campaigns of that kind. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to accept that we should he advancing, with the support of religious communities, a regulation that includes such an open-ended licence for people to advance things that are not the doctrines of the Church and may not be the doctrines of any religion. Frankly, they are their own gut reactions, which they clothe in those doctrines because they believe that it will advance their cause. That concerns me very greatly indeed.
My second difficulty is that I do not believe that the rights of religious communities are unlimited in relation to the civil law of society. A balance must be struck, time and time again as a matter of fact, about whether religious communities may preserve their distinctive character or whether that distinctive character goes too far outside what the public good has come to see as right. I frankly believe that on many issues those matters will be very controversial. For example, we have seen the controversy about the rights of animals in relation to techniques of slaughter that have substantial religious support and tradition behind them. We shall not avoid what is a serious debate in all areas of society, all our Churches and all our faith communities. Certainly, we shall not be able to avoid it in this House.
My concern is that a regulation has been presented to us today that cuts through that debate as though the issue was completely clear. I do not believe that it is, and I do not believe that the language is clear. I am not worried so much about litigation and long deliberations in courts of law. What worries me much more is what might happen on the streets, when people wind up communities. I do not believe that we have yet explored nearly far enough the possibility of creating language in a regulation that is sufficiently limiting and proportionate to defend those things that are undoubtedly necessary for a character of a religious community but also require that community to live within the insights of society as a whole. That is why I have taken it on myself to voice a minority judgment and to express my support for the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Lester.
Lord Lea of Crondall: My Lords, I follow the right reverend Prelate in one respect—his caution against exaggeration on either side of the debate. There is a worrying tendency in this debate for people to go well beyond the question of the vires of the transposition of a European directive. The temperature of the debate has been raised well outside the scope of the Motion that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, purported to move. The noble Lord used the word "annul", but in his Motion the word is "amend".
772
I am a member of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the point that I probed on that committee. However, although I am a member of the committee and strongly support its report, I shall not be voting either way on the Motion. I shall make a couple of points about that.
First, as the right reverend Prelate pointed out, two debates are going on here. In one respect, one of them is ultra vires, since all we ought to be debating tonight is whether we agree about the question of doubt about the vires of Regulation 7(3). We should not be having the broad debate that we seem to be getting into. We should not be raising the stakes of tonight's debate as noble Lords on all sides have been, by making points that imply that the European directive transposition gives us a lot of scope to do this or not to do that. In fact, it is quite remarkable that we are having this debate on the transposition of a European directive, because there is no argument about the fact that we are transposing a European directive. The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, made some remark about how this would have been done differently by a different government—I do not know whether that is the point that she was touching on—but broadly speaking, we all know that we are transposing a European directive with very little wriggle-room for how we transpose it.
The only wriggle-room for how we transpose European directives is to some extent what is made explicit in our transposition through regulations and what is left implicit. Regulation 7(3) in some respects makes explicit what, it can be argued, is implicit in Regulation 7(2), both following Articles 4.1 and 4.2 of the European Directive. For those noble Lords who doubt what I have just said, let me remind you of what is stated in Article 4.1 of the European Directive of which this is the transposition. The Equality Directive provides that Member States may provide that a difference of treatment which is based on a characteristic related to religion, belief, disability, age or sexual orientation,
"shall not constitute discrimination where, by reason of the nature of the particular occupational activities or the context in which they are carried out, such a characteristic constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement."
The ultimate reason why, in a sense, it does not matter what we do tonight, and the reason why industrial tribunals will inevitably have to look at some cases—there is no way in which the Archangel Gabriel could come down here and say what are the words to avoid anybody going to an industrial tribunal—is that these transpositions are going to he ambiguous when it comes to the behaviour of an individual and they will have to be tested. There is no easy way out of that, and whatever happens when the House divides, as it is said it will tonight, it should be recognised that this is a very important transposition of a European directive and it is unreasonable for people to say that this is a set-back for people when it is clearly a step forward, or if we do the opposite, to say that it is a leap further forward. This is a very solid step forward in protecting people's rights. People are grossly exaggerating what an industrial tribunal would

773
find on a case by case basis if Regulation 7(3) were not there. I caution noble Lords to deal with the rather narrow point of what is ultra vires. There is some doubt about it, but there is not as much difference as has been said in some parts of the debate this evening.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Lea of Crondall, about the importance of distinguishing between arguments on the merits of the objective of these regulations and the particular regulation we are talking about, and on the other hand the technicalities—to use his word—of the means by which that objective is achieved. It was inevitable that this debate should give rise to very well informed and passionately felt submissions on each side of the arguments about the merits of the objective. I do not feel qualified to engage in that, and it would not be to the point that I want to address if I were to do so. The point seems to me to be a very narrow one; it is whether the committee was justified in what it said in its report at paragraph 1.11, two sentences of which I wish to cite. The report states:
"The Committee considered that regulation 7(2) was justified by Article 4.1 of the Directive, but that regulation 7(3) might permit difference of treatment based on a characteristic related to sexual orientation where the characteristic could not be said to be a 'genuine and determining occupational requirement' which was proportionate, as envisaged by the Directive".
The question alone that I should like to address, and which forms the core of what the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, said to us some time ago now, is whether the committee was justified in observing that doubt. I have very great sympathy with those who drafted the regulations. It is an extraordinarily difficult subject. To transpose—to use the word used by the noble Lord, Lord Lea—the requirements of Article 4.1 into our own domestic legislation in a way which meets the norms that we look for, high among which is certainty, is an enormously difficult job.
The right reverend Prelates, seated opposite in such impressive numbers, will never have preached a sermon of this character themselves but they will recognise the characteristics of a sermon in which the preacher displays and shares his doubts but fails to come to a conclusion that can be described as teaching. I am afraid that my own contribution tonight at this late stage is going to have that melancholy characteristic.
It seems to me that one starts with looking at Article 4.1 and one sees there that the draftsman has recognised that it is necessary to take account of the specific susceptibilities that arise when a characteristic related to, for example, sexual orientation constitutes a genuine and determining occupational requirement by reason of the nature of the particular occupation or activities concerned, provided that it is proportionate and so forth. That is the language that has found its way into Article 4.1 and that is the way in which the draftsman of the article has sought to meet those susceptibilities. The question—it is quite a narrow one—is whether the recently added Regulation 7(3) contains language that reliably falls within that
774
requirement of being a genuine and determining occupational requirement. Regulation 7(2) does and the committee was happy about that, but does Regulation 7(3)? It has to be able to come within the envelope, or under the umbrella, of being a genuine and determining occupational requirement.
The language of Regulation 7(3) speaks of employment,
"for purposes of an organised religion"—
I pass over the arguments about that. Regulation 7(3) further states that,
"the employer applies a requirement related to sexual orientation".
I pass over the purposes which then follow.
Does a requirement related to sexual orientation always fall within and never outside the ambit of a genuine and determining occupational requirement? I refer to a particular sexual orientation which is a genuine and determining occupational requirement. That is the question. Of course it is possible to have more than one view. Sir Anthony Hammond QC advised the department. I have the greatest respect for him. He was legal adviser to the Home Office and after that Treasury Solicitor. But when I read the record of the committee's evidence taking, it seems to me that there was revealed a very sensible ground upon which it had doubt. Mr Magyar, the legal adviser, was very frank. He said:
"I think that the two provisions are covering slightly different situations. 7(3) may be slightly broader but both—".
He was interrupted at question 31 by Mr Andrew Bennett, who asked:
"Only slightly broader?".
Mr Magyar replied:
"I would say so. The criteria are drafted strictly".
He went on to express his opinion that there was no part of Regulation 7(3) that did not fall within the language that I have mentioned. The committee was worried about the provision being slightly broader. Is it so broad that, in any respect, it becomes ultra vires?
I do not know as yet how I am going to vote on the matter, and I shall be influenced very strongly, not only by some of speeches that I have heard—I shall not particularize—but by what the Minister is going to say. I am interested in whether he accepts that there is a doubt, whether he thinks that there is a doubt but it is worth putting up with, or whether he thinks that it might not in all circumstances be better not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. We have heard that expression already from my noble friend. He might think that it might be wiser to look after the baby for a little longer and change the bathwater.
At the moment it seems that, in this rather passionate debate, we run a risk of overlooking our duty to legislate in a way that is certain and clear, and will not put unfortunate people to the expense and stress of litigating to find out what we really meant and then going to appeal and so on. I have shared my

775
doubts. I have not attempted to teach. In those circumstances. it has been the worst kind of sermon. I want to hear what the Minister says.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, pace what my noble friend Lord Lea said, and indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew of Twysden, I just want to add a very small footnote to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester said in his very profound address. The noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, set out the dubious legality of Regulation 7(3), and my noble friends Lord Alli and Lady Turner have eloquently described the implications.
I just want to say that it seems to me that Regulation 7(3) does not also follow the spirit of Article 13 of the Amsterdam Treaty, which I had some involvement in drafting. Article 13 is a fundamental part of our new basis of agreed rights. It flows ultimately from the UN Charter, the European Convention and the Human Rights Act, rights that we need to assert as our common ground in our multicultural society. Exactly for the reason that the faiths and beliefs of our societies ought to be respected, we need to respect them within a common ground of tolerance underpinned by universal human rights and fundamental freedoms.
Freedom from discrimination in employment, qualified only on the narrowest grounds, is one of the most important of these. Freedom from discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation is another. This last freedom is the least honoured in everyday culture. One can hear prejudice which, if it were about women or people from different ethnic backgrounds, would be repudiated—even prosecuted—spoken quite freely about sexual orientation. It is time to take a stand, and I do urge the Government to think again.
9.45 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, this is less of a speech than it is a set of questions to the Minister. We have heard some fine speeches today, many of which have been very technical about the relationship of these regulations to the original directive. However, when looking at whether these regulations are acceptable, it is the outcome that is important—the impact that they will have on individual lives.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, whom we all respect, made it clear that he would only wish these regulations to be taken so far. Rather than bar homosexuals in regard to sexual orientation, I think that he was talking about abstinence. The same debate continues about the appointment of the Bishop of Reading.
However, the first question is whether or not a religious organisation such as the Church of England, when putting an advertisement in a newspaper, for instance, could say "heterosexuals only need apply". Will that be legal? At what level of employment will that be legal?
Secondly, at interview, an employer will ask questions of prospective employees. What kind of questions will the employer be entitled to ask? Will he
776
be able to ask if the candidate is gay, lesbian, in a relationship, or celibate? These questions flow from the regulations. Perhaps the Minister can clarify whether it would be perfectly proper for a religious organisation to ask them.
I live in Clapham, where the Board of Education of the Church of England is sponsoring a city academy. Many people had their doubts about whether it was proper for the board to be a sponsor. What is the nature of the sponsoring relationship in those circumstances? What signals are sent out to parents and prospective pupils? Will the school be able to interrogate potential employees about their sexual orientation or not?
My questions are practical, not technical. They address issues that will be of great importance if these regulations are passed tonight. I fervently hope that they are not passed.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I ask for the patience of the House in listening to a short speech. I sincerely admire the strongly held convictions of my noble friends and colleagues on the other Benches. I hope that they respect the strongly held beliefs of the people who disagree with them. This is not the occasion to enter into a debate of Church and religion versus gay and lesbian rights. The question is whether or not these regulations are intra vires.
Some things need to be plainly said by way of background. First, the Human Rights Act 1998 does not provide a right against discrimination of the kind that we are debating this evening. That is why the Minister certified that these regulations were compatible with the Act. Secondly, the preamble to the directive explicitly recognises the ability of member states to take into account in formulating the directive the interests of religious and Church organisations within each member state. In addition, we must bear in mind that the law in this country—I repeat, the law—allows Churches and religious organisations to act in a way that is similar to that contemplated by Regulation 7(3).
Section 19 of the Sex Discrimination Act is a similar provision. So far as I am aware, it has not produced a large-scale litigation suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Lester. Equally, Section 60 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 explicitly provides that the governing body of a voluntary-aided school shall have regard in connection with the termination of employment of a teacher to any conduct on his or her part that is incompatible with the precepts, tenets or religion of the school in question. That is the law of our country now. Those considerations illustrate the flaw in seeking to convert the regulations into the confrontational position that I said was not justified.
I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will forgive me for saying that the confidence that any lawyer reposes in the quality of his own opinion is rarely a guide to its reliability. I include myself in such an analysis. However, when the Joint Committee considered Regulation 7(3), it had before it and took

777
into account, at paragraphs 1, 12 and 13, seven discrete but cumulatively effective arguments in favour of the legality of Regulation 7(3). It is open to lawyers— commentators are not lawyers—to doubt whether provisions are in fact within the vires of the directive or not. The reassurance that I give to the House that the directive is being properly applied involves the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew. It is not a question of whether Regulation 7(3) stands or falls; it is a question of whether, in any particular case in which a Church or religion seeks to rely on Regulation 7(3) in its defence, it is required to show under Article 4.1 that the directive in this context commands the analysis of Regulation 7(3) and that the decision represented a genuine and determining occupational requirement that has been applied proportionately.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords—
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I am sorry; I do not propose to give way. This is a long debate. If the noble Lord will forgive me, he took a long time himself.
This is not an occasion for battle; it is an occasion for balance between different rights. The Government sought to strike the right balance between competing interests. I believe that they have done their best and we should agree to the regulations.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to explain the rationale behind Regulation 7(3) of the sexual orientation regulations and to clarify its scope. We have a duty to think very carefully indeed before making any exception for equality legislation. A provision that concerns the sexual orientation of people employed for the purpose of organised religion is clearly a particularly sensitive matter, and it is right that we should consider the evidence set out by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its 21st report of 2002–03 before going on to consider the merits of the regulations as a whole.
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, is widely respected on all sides of the House for his long-standing commitment, experience and achievements in the fields of equality. He set out the issues and his own views in a characteristically measured and fair way. In doing so, he did a service to the House.
Before I go any further, I must mention the report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments. Again, it is a measured and genuinely constructive contribution to the debate. The committee concluded that the doubt about the vires of Regulation 7(3) was sufficient to draw it to the attention of both Houses but the committee has not, contrary to some rumours, said that the regulations are ultra vires. Indeed, it notes that the Government's arguments about the compatibility of Regulation 7(3) with the directive might succeed if tested in the courts. We are firmly of the view that it would.
We have made a considerable investment in working with a wide range of stakeholders on equality policy since 2000. In addition to bilateral meetings, seminars,
778
conference and on-line research, there have been no fewer than three national consultation exercises in the past three years, prompting just short of 4,000 submissions. I believe that they have provided an invaluable basis of evidence from which to take decisions.
I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, that the baby has been sitting in the bath water for a very long time with people throwing ducks and sponges at it. It is now time to take it out of the bath, dry it, and send it to bed. I hope that the House will do that this evening.
The first exercise informed our negotiations with other member states. The second focused on principles which would underpin new equality legislation. But, as so often happens, it was the third consultation with the publication of detailed draft regulations, which helped us to highlight and resolve practical difficulties.
It became clear that with the regulations as drafted the Churches would have some difficulty upholding the doctrine and teaching of their faith in relation to particular posts. I suspect that quite a variety of faiths represented on the Benches this evening may disagree quite strongly with other religious beliefs, but we recognise and respect the fact that they are genuinely held.
In the same way we do not believe that these regulations should interfere with religious teachings or doctrine, nor do we believe it appropriate that doctrine should be the subject of litigation in the civil courts.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester made a very interesting and fine speech, but I say to him that the logic of his comments about taking out the words "strongly held religious convictions" means that we would have to go back to a situation where religious doctrine and the reasonableness of it, would have to be debated in tribunals.
The employment directive is explicit in recognising the status of Churches and religious associations. As Lord Russell said once in this House,
"The difficulty comes not when evil is pitched against good, hut when two goods are pitched against each other".
In this case, they are religious traditions and the sexual orientation regulations. We have to draw a careful line between the two within the terms of the employment directive. I believe that we have succeeded in doing that.
I turn to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester, who asked what the "etc" meant in the heading,
"Exceptions for genuine occupational requirements etc".
The "etc" does not introduce additional points; it refers to the issues which relate to GOR exceptions. It does not refer to further possible situations, but deals with genuine occupational requirements and the issues which relate to them.
This is not a question of extreme positions. Article 4(1) of the European directive is quite clear that religious considerations can be taken into account. What we are debating this evening is exactly where that line is drawn.

779
Under these circumstances I believe that the Government need to take a lead—and we did that in preparing Regulation 7(3). It resolves the problem of interfering with doctrine and teachings while remaining consistent with the directive. We believe that Regulation 7(3) is lawful because it pursues a legitimate aim of preventing interference with a religion's doctrine and teaching and it does so proportionately because of its narrow application to a small number of jobs and the strict criteria which it lays down.
There is no need to copy out the words "genuine", "determining", "legitimate", "proportionate", because the provisions embody the obligations which are set out in the directive.
Having explained why Article 7(3) is necessary, I wish to focus on the scope of the provision. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Lester, that this is a crucial issue. As well as dealing with the points that he and the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments have raised, I hope that it will assist the House if I pick up on others which have been reflected in press reports over the last week.
When drafting Regulation 7(3), we had in mind a very narrow range of employment: ministers of religion, plus a small number of posts outside the clergy, including those who exist to promote and represent religion. The words on the page reflect our intentions. The first clause reads:
"This paragraph applies where— (a) the employment is for the purposes of an organised religion".
First, this is no "blanket exception". It is quite clear that Regulation 7(3) does not apply to all jobs in a particular type of organisation. On the contrary, employersmust be prepared to justify any requirement related to sexual orientation on a case by case basis. The rule only applies to employment which is for the purposes of "organised religion", not religious organisations. There is a clear distinction in meaning between the two. A religious organisation could be any organisation with an ethos based on religion or belief. However, employment for the purposes of an organised religion clearly means a job. such as a minister of religion, involving work for a church, synagogue or mosque.
A care home run by a religious foundation may qualify as a religious organisation, for example. I do not wish to make light of differences which the involvement of a church, mosque or synagogue can make to the culture of an organisation, but I believe that it would be very difficult under these regulations to show that the job of a nurse in a care home exists,
"for the purposes of an organised religion".
I would say exactly the same in relation to a teacher at a faith school. Such jobs exist for the purposes of health care and education.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about a number of human issues that turn out also to be technical. He raised the question of an advertisement. That could not say "only heterosexuals need apply"
780
unless it was a genuine occupational requirement that the job holder be heterosexual. That would depend on the application of the clause.
Regulation 7(3) does riot stop there. Even if an employer can show that the job exists for the purposes of organised religion, and that is a significant hurdle, he may only apply a requirement related to sexual orientation if one of two further tests are met. In the first test the requirement must be applied to comply with the doctrines of the religion. We do not believe that that test would be met in relation to many posts. It would be very difficult for a church to argue that a requirement related to sexual orientation applied to a post of cleaner, gardener or secretary. Religious doctrine rarely has much to say about posts such as those.
If the first test is not met, what about the second? There the church will have to show that the requirement related to sexual orientation is necessary,
"because of the nature of the employment and the context in which it is carried out, so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers …".
I shall dispel one or two myths. It is neither sufficient for the requirement to be imposed simply because of the nature of the work and the context in which it is carried out, nor may the requirement be imposed simply because of the religious convictions of the followers of the faith. Both elements have to be satisfied before the second test can be met. They are strict tests and will be met in very few cases. That is contrary to the impression created by some of the more sensational comments that have found their way into the press over the past few weeks.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, I realise that the Minister intends to move on to another aspect. He used the word "necessary". What he said was that it had to be shown to be "necessary" in terms of Regulation 7(3)(b) too. Where is that word to be found, and how can the proportionality test be read into the words of the provision?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is necessary to be shown that that is the case. That is clearly stated in Regulation 7(3). It says that the paragraph applies only "where"—and therefore it is necessary that—those tests are applied. I would have thought that that followed clearly in Regulation 7(3).
As I said, the second test is then applied and there are the methods that have been referred to. Both elements have to be satisfied before the second test can be met. It is, therefore, a very strict test and one that will be met in very few cases. The position of a cleaner or a librarian, which has been raised many times, has to be judged against those criteria. They are strict criteria and one cannot say in a specific case what the situation will be. In such cases one has to apply the criteria and see whether or not they are fulfilled.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller, raised the question of what was meant by a significant number of followers. Ultimately, that is a question of fact for the tribunals or the courts and will depend on the

781
circumstances of each case, but it is not expected that this question should prove more difficult to resolve than other questions of fact which are regularly faced by the courts. Sexual orientation Regulation 7 has to be phrased in those terms to be workable in practice. If we had stricter wording, referring, for example, to a majority of' the religion's followers, that could lead tribunals and courts to expect detailed statistical analysis to be submitted to them on the number of followers with religious convictions about particular requirements or the numbers without such religious convictions. I think we would all agree that that would not be practical.
Finally, what is the difference between Regulations 7(2) and 7(3)? There are two differences. First, Regulation 7(2) is of general application. It covers any employment where being gay, straight or bisexual is a genuine occupational requirement. By contrast, Regulation 7(3) applies only where employment is for the purposes of an organised religion and either religious doctrine or the nature and context of the job, together with the religious convictions of the religion's followers, gives rise to a genuine occupational requirement. Regulation 7(3) then applies to very few jobs. Only in very limited circumstances would a requirement imposed on someone whose job does not involve participation in religious activities be justified under Regulation 7(3).
Secondly, Regulation 7(2) applies where sexual orientation is a genuine occupational requirement. In other words, one has to be gay, straight or bisexual to do the job. Regulation 7(3) applies where a requirement related to a sexual orientation is a genuine occupational requirement. It is slightly wider than Regulation 7(2) in that respect but reflects the wording of Article 4.1.
To conclude, Regulation 7(3) is necessary if the regulations are not to interfere in Church doctrine. We understand how the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments reached its conclusion and our extensive consultation leaves us in no doubt about the strength of feeling among the gay and lesbian community. But having considered all the arguments carefully, we are satisfied that Regulation 7(3) is infra vires and that from December the courts and tribunals will be able to construe this tightly drawn exception in a way that is consistent with the directive.
I understand entirely why we have focused in this debate on the provisions in Regulation 7(3). While an important part of the regulations, it is, of course, only a small part. We must not forget that there is no protection currently for those who experience harassment, discrimination or victimisation at work on grounds of their sexual orientation.
These regulations are designed to outlaw that kind of unacceptable treatment for the first time. They have a wide application. They cover employment and training across England, Scotland and Wales whatever the size of the organisation, whether in the public or private sector. They represent a significant addition to our domestic equality legislation and will make a practical difference to the lives of millions of people. I
782
believe that they should be welcomed. I do hope that that has served to reassure the House and that the noble Lord, Lord Lester, will feel able to reconsider his Motion.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, first, I thank everyone who has taken part in this important debate for having done so at this late hour, especially the Minister for his full, clear and helpful reply. Secondly, perhaps I may make clear that, like the Minister, I very much welcome the regulations and do not agree with the attack made upon them by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Hendon, suggesting that somehow they are not regulations that should generally be supported. I strongly support them. In particular, I strongly support the commitment to equality of treatment without discrimination placed on sexual orientation that they embody. As the Minister knows from previous debates, I regret only that they are by way of subordinate legislation and therefore can cover only employment and occupation. However, that is a matter for another day.
Thirdly, I must make it quite clear that there is no dispute about the need to balance, on the one hand, the fundamental right to religious freedom with, on the other, the fundamental individual right to equality without discrimination—indeed, not just an individual right, but the right of a vulnerable minority. I cannot improve on the wisdom, on this occasion as previously, of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Worcester in what he has said about that. There is a question of a fair balance, however, and I entirely accept that the Government have been struggling to secure a fair balance.
Fourthly, the debate today reminds me of debates on the Human Rights Bill when, at an early stage, the Churches sought—in a completely misconceived way, I have to say respectfully—a blanket exemption from the application of the Human Rights Bill to the Churches. At that stage the Government quite rightly did not accept their pressure and the religious freedom provision in the Human Rights Act goes no further than is necessary.
The central question raised this evening, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, rightly reminded us, is a quite narrow but important one. The question is whether, when one looks at Regulation 7(1), (2) and (3), Regulation 7(3) is, in the words of the Minister, a narrowly and carefully tailored provision based on the strict criteria of' proportionality. That is the question.
If your Lordships would for the last time take up Regulation 7 and look at it again, Regulation 7(2) is quite clear, because it uses as its touchstone the notion of proportionality. One has to be of a particular sexual orientation; there has to be a genuine and determining occupational requirement; and it must be proportionate to apply that requirement in the particular case. That would apply equally to a religious context or any other context.
The vice, as I have described it, of Regulation 7(3) is one of over-breadth and vagueness. Leaving aside the vagueness of what is meant by "organised religion",

783
the vice in Regulation 7(3)(b), if one looks at it carefully, is that there are no words of limitation. It is sufficient for the employer to apply,
"a requirement related to sexual orientation"—
very wide words—
"because of the nature of the employment and the context in which it is carried out"—
and, these are the limiting words—
"so as to avoid conflicting with the strongly held religious convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers".
So it is to comply with the strongly held convictions of a significant number of the religion's followers. There is no requirement of a genuine occupational qualification, no requirement of proportionality, no strict test and no strict criteria.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, that one should never trust one's own opinions, even if one is so foolish as to express them in public. I only expressed my opinion in the way I did because I am supported by the Joint Select Committee on Human Rights and their opinion, and I take comfort from that.
I have listened very carefully to the Minister and I agree with him that a tribunal or court might seek to read down Regulation 7(3) in the way that he suggests, to try to make it compatible with the directive. It is a technique that the judges increasingly have to adopt with badly drafted regulations. My plea this evening is to seek to avoid the courts having to remake these regulations by a process of interpretation, because it is our job as lawmakers to try to get the law right. I do not seek a fatal amendment opposing the regulations; I simply ask that they be sent back so that proportionate language can be inserted.
No noble Lord who spoke in this passionate, rational debate commended the language used in Regulation 7(3). The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Blackburn, who did his very best to explain the justification for the regulations, said at the end of his important speech that he, too, was unhappy with the language that had been used because of its over-breadth.
With great respect for what the Minister said, the regulations are not satisfactory. The only way that we can show our disapproval is by seeking the opinion of the House. I regret, therefore, that I must now test the opinion of the House.
10.15 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Motion shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 50; Not-Contents, 85.

Division No. 3

CONTENTS

Addington, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Alli, L.

Dundee, E.

Avebury, L.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

Barker, B.

Greaves, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Greengross, B.

784

Hamwee, B.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Roper, L. [Teller]

Hereford, Bp.

Russell-Johnston, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

St.John of Bletso, L.

Joffe, L.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Maclennan of Rogart, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Maddock, B.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Mar, C.

Taverne, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.[Teller]

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Tope, L.

Mayhew of Twysden, L.

Tordoff, L.

Newby, L.

Turner of Camden, B.

Northesk, E.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Northover, B.

Walmsley, B.

Norton of Louth, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

Wigoder, L.

Parekh, L.

Wilkins, B.

Rennard, L.

Worcester, Bp.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Hoyle, L.

Andrews, B.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Ashcroft, L.

Hunt of Wirral, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Hylton, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Jones, L.

Berkeley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Black of Crossharbour, L.

Knight of Collingtree, B.

Blackburn, Bp.

Laird, L.

Blatch, B.

Lindsay, E.

Borrie, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Brennan, L.

Lyell, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

McCarthy, L.

Campbell-Savours, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

McIntosh of Haringey, L.

Carter, L.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Chan, L.

Mitchell, L.

Chester, Bp.

Monson, L.

Cohen of Pimlico, B.

Neill of Bladen, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Nicol, B.

Corbett of Castle Vale, L.

Northbourne, L.

Crathorne, L.

O'Cathain, B.

Crawley, B.

Pendry, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Davies of Oldham, L. [Teller]

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Dixon, L.

Richard, L.

Dubs, L.

Rooker, L.

Elder, L.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Evans of Temple Guiting, L.

Sawyer, L.

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Scotland of Asthal, B.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Seccombe, B.

Gale, B.

Selborne, E.

Golding, B.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Symons of Vemham Dean, B.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Goudie, B.

Tebbit, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Turnberg, L.

Grocott, L. [Teller]

Ullswater, V.

Hanham, B.

Waddington, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Warner, L.

Haskel, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L. (Lord President of the Council)

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
10.25 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th May be approved.— (Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the regulations are to effect a European directive that protects me from discrimination on grounds of religion or belief. The regulations, which the Minister moved formally, are quite different. They protect those who have religion—religious belief —or similar philosophical beliefs. My beliefs are not similar to religion; they do not rest on revelation or faith. However we define religion, I do not share or have beliefs that share any similar basis. For the Government to protect in British law only those who have a similar belief is, first, outwith the European directive and, indeed, outwith the European tradition.
Willing though I am at this time of the night to discuss the Fire Services Bill, I am not willing to weary your Lordships with a list of European documents that, as many noble Lords will know, protect those who have a belief founded on religion.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I must ask the noble Lord which regulations he is talking about. I formally moved the sexual orientation regulations.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I am covered in apology. I apologise to the noble Lord. I will speak when we come to the relevant regulations. I misheard.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: I apologise for that.

Business of the House: Fire Services Bill
10.28 p.m.
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we move to the next order, I shall make a short business statement.
As your Lordships will be aware, the Third Reading of the Sexual Offences Bill went on a little longer than anyone anticipated. The net effect of the debate this evening was that, had we proceeded to the business as arranged—the Second Reading of the Fire Services Bill—we would not have started the Second Reading debate until at least now, if not considerably later, depending on how long the next order took.
The usual channels discussed the matter and decided that it would not be fair to the House to deal with an important Bill at this time of the evening. I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will agree that it makes sense that, to ensure the minimum dislocation, the Second Reading of the Fire Services Bill should take
786
place on Thursday of this week, immediately after the Report stage of the Railways and Transport Safety Bill.

Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003
10.29 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turvillerose to move, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th May be approved.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to introduce the religion or belief regulations and to clarify their scope. We have already debated the sexual orientation regulations. These regulations contain many of the same provisions in dealing with concepts of harassment, indirect and direct discrimination and victimisation. The regulations also contain a provision dealing with genuine occupational requirement.
There is no specific protection at the moment for those who experience discrimination at work on the grounds of their religion or belief. Members of Muslim, Christian and other communities have been dismissed, victimised and turned down for work unfairly simply because of their faith. Of those who are not religious, atheists and humanists, for example, have also experienced discrimination at work because of their beliefs or absence of them.
These regulations will make this kind of unacceptable treatment unlawful. They have a wide application. They will apply to those who offer employment and training right across England, Scotland and Wales, whatever the size of the organisation, whether in the public or private sector and whether secular or religious.
Defining an act of discrimination is as challenging now as when the Sex Discrimination and Race Relations Acts were designed in the mid-1970s. There has been no more difficult question in equality law than defining religion. One alternative would have been to list religions, but that would have been an inflexible solution. Far from providing employers with the certainty that they want, such a list would very quickly become out of date. That assumes, of course, that an exhaustive list was ever a realistic aim, even in the short term. It is not.
A broad definition of religion, in general terms, is the only workable solution. Over 70 per cent of respondents to consultation agreed. Coherence is another important issue. In preparing the legislation, we have been open to new approaches where appropriate and necessary. Our driving principle has been to ensure that the regulations should be consistent with other requirements wherever that is practical. Your Lordships' House has already considered in the Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations some of the provisions we also intend to adopt in these regulations.

787
That means for concepts such as direct and indirect discrimination, the form of words used here mirrors that used in other regulations here tonight. They also follow those used in other legislation, such as the Race Relations Act. These concepts are important points for many religious communities. I do not have to remind your Lordships of some of the tragic incidents that followed September 11th where individuals were attacked because of their faith or because they associated with people of a particular faith.
For the first time in UK discrimination legislation, these regulations include explicit protection against harassment. The regulations also outlaw victimisation in much the same terms as existing equality legislation. They allow for positive action. Of course, complaints made under these regulations will mainly be considered by employment tribunals in the same way as complaints on the grounds of sex, race and disability.
As ever, there are some exceptions. It would be odd if legislation designed to outlaw religious discrimination took away the ability of organisations to have an ethos genuinely based on faith. That, no doubt, is why the directive contains a specific provision dealing expressly with churches and religious organisations. Employers with an ethos based on religion or belief will be able to recruit employees from their own faith group where they can demonstrate that this is a genuine occupational requirement. Obvious examples are that one must be Jewish to be a rabbi and Catholic to become a Catholic priest. However, we have deliberately not prescribed which posts will be covered by a genuine occupational requirement on religion.
We believe that Government are not qualified to do that. It makes more sense for employers to consider whether the functions of the post require someone to have a particular faith. But an employer must be prepared to justify its actions. It is not sufficient for an employer simply to show that it has a religious ethos. Exemption will apply only where, having regard to the ethos and to the nature of the job or context, it is a genuine occupational requirement for the post-holder to have a particular belief. Even then it must be proportionate to apply the requirement in each case. If challenged, the employer will need to defend its decisions before an employment tribunal.
This exception is focused on an individual's faith. There is nothing in these regulations which will allow organisations to discriminate against gays or lesbians or indeed to justify any act which is unlawful under the sexual orientation regulations. Of course, all employers, with a religious ethos or not, can expect their staff to uphold certain standards of conduct, but those conduct rules cannot discriminate on any other ground such as sexual orientation.
These regulations are important. They provide protection for the first time from discrimination and harassment at work on the grounds of religion or belief. I commend them to the House.
788
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 8th May be approved.—(Lord Sainsbury of Turville.)
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, I hesitate to rise again in order to speak, having detained your Lordships for 30 seconds in quite the wrong place, for which I again apologise.
My noble friend the Minister has now moved regulations on grounds which, within the bounds of his speech, are absolutely incontrovertible, but he did not address the point. The point is that the purpose of the European directive is to lay down a general framework for combating discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief. That is what the directive says, but it is not what these regulations say.
The Minister says that these regulations contain nothing against gays or lesbians. I am not surprised that he said that. The point is that they do not protect atheists or humanists who do not have a similar belief. Where did the word "similar" come from? Was it another quest to Downing Street for temporal power by the religious bodies? I ask the question in all honesty, because I genuinely do not know. Did the Archbishops or the Pope ask for the word "similar'" to be included?
I see noble Lords shaking their heads. They are happy with their faith and their religion. No one tries to attack that. Why do some noble Lords object to our saying—
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way. I raised my hand, which he astutely observed. The word "similar" in these regulations is used in relation to the quality of the belief, not its nature. The phrase "similar philosophical belief' addresses the state of mind in which someone holds that belief to the same thinking quality as a religious belief. It is not used to assimilate it in any way with a religion.
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, the noble Lord has his own definition. However, that is not the definition in the regulations. He, again, shakes his head. I am not prepared to have him say whether, in terms of honesty, my belief is similar to one of religious belief. I know religious people who quite genuinely and honestly say, "Your belief is nothing like ours. Your belief is outrageous and something for which you should be punished, if not here, at any rate hereafter". People have said that to me. The noble Lord does not say that to me, because he is a reasonable man and whatever he believes falls within the regulations. I am telling him that I do not fall within these draft regulations that contain the word "similar".
The noble Lord suggests that it means religious belief or some honest, strongly-held philosophical belief. Let him move an amendment. Of course, he cannot move an amendment to regulations; that is why this is done by regulation. I do not accept that the word "similar" protects everyone who is genuinely prejudiced on the grounds of honest and sincerely held belief. The noble Lord's argument does not controvert

789
that. I know people who have been prejudiced for their atheist and humanist beliefs. I point out to the Minister that his regulations do not protect those people. If he does not fail in the courts on the sexual orientation regulations, by heaven, he will one day fail on these regulations. Is the Minister satisfied with that position?
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, noble Lords on these Benches very much welcome the equality regulations, as we welcome the others that have already been debated. We welcome them because they remove a long-standing anomaly in our anti-discrimination law. The anomaly has always been that I, as a secular Jew, for example, am protected because Jews are regarded as an ethnic group. I am protected against discrimination because of my ethnicity. However, if I were a religious Jew, I would not be protected, and a Muslim who is regarded as not being a member of an ethnic group has, at present, no protection at all. Clearly, therefore, the time has long been ripe for legislation of this kind to combat religious discrimination, just as it has combated racial discrimination in the past.
With regard to the scope of the legislation, my strong regret relates to the anomaly that will now be created in covering employment and occupation only, because the powers conferred by the European Communities Act to proceed by way of subordinate legislation fetter the Government's ability to cover anything beyond employment and occupation. It makes absolutely no sense that 1, as a secular Jew, am protected under the Race Relations Act against discrimination in housing, education or goods and services, whereas I would not be so protected under these regulations as a religious Jew, a Muslim, a Sikh, a Christian or a member of any other faith. That is an anomaly that a future government will surely have to tackle by means of comprehensive and coherent equality legislation. I hope that my Bill has provided some encouragement for that.
I have already given rather late notice to the Minister that I would be grateful for an answer to a question I raised last week in the race relations equality debate. I asked how many of those consulted were in favour of proceeding by subordinate legislation in this area, rather than by primary legislation. I ask the question tonight because this is the last opportunity for the answer to have the slightest relevance to your Lordships' House. If that question could be answered tonight rather than later, I should be very grateful.
I, like the noble Lord, Lord Wedderburn, feel a certain bewilderment. The explanatory notes on the regulations, contrary to the view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, say:
"Regulation 2 defines various terms that are used throughout the Regulations. In particular … 'religion or belief is defined as being any religion, religious belief or similar philosophical belief. This does not include any philosophical or political belief unless that belief is similar to a religious belief".
Frankly, I do not understand that. In my equality Bill, I dealt with the matter by saying that it includes a lack of belief. If the regulation says that discrimination
790
because of a lack of religious belief was part of the invidious grounds, that would comply with the European Convention on Human Rights. Of course, that would not apply to employment, but it would apply to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, to the Universal Declaration on Human Rights, and the International Labour Organisation conventions.
The Minister said in his helpful introduction that atheists and agnostics are protected, but I do not believe that the explanatory notes on regulation or the way in which the regulation is worded supports that view. The Minister's statement, which might be known as a Pepper v Hart statement, shows what the Government's intention is. However, the intention is not reflected in the language of the regulation. It would be useful if the Minister in his reply could make it absolutely clear that discrimination because of a lack of religious belief was intended to be covered—so that if a humanist, an agnostic, an atheist or any other godless person or person without faith who is discriminated against is covered. In that way. the tribunal that has to interpret the regulations will at least know that that is the intention.
The directive certainly refers to "religion or belief', and belief certainly includes a lack of religious belief—in other words a philosophical or political belief as well as a religious belief. Northern Ireland legislation specifically covers discrimination on grounds not only of religious belief but of political opinion. That legislation goes wider than this. I seek reassurance from the Minister that at least the intention is to protect atheists, agnostics. rationalists, secularists, humanists and all the others who make up the ungodly and irreligious, including myself.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, it is late and I am going to try to be very brief. We welcome these regulations, which prohibit discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief in employment or vocational training. Although I do not think there is much evidence of widespread discrimination on religious grounds in England, Scotland and Wales, I think there is a problem in Europe. In the interests of a uniform code of practice throughout the free labour market in the EC. the United Kingdom has to pass this legislation, and it is right that it should do so.
There are a couple of things that I wish to ask the Minister. The regulation refers to religion and to belief; I would be interested if he could say what is a belief, as distinct from a religious belief. That comes to the heart of the matter. Is there any difference? In his reply, will the Minister define both religion and belief? If he cannot I will understand because draftsmen run away from that and I am not sure that it helps too much if we cannot give a correct answer, or a total answer.
I apologise to the Minister for not having given him notice of my next point and I am not expecting an answer tonight, but I should like some information on it if possible, so perhaps he will write to me. EU Directive 2000/78/EC, on which this present set of regulations is founded, says at Article 4.2.

791
"Provided that its provisions are otherwise complied with, this Directive shall thus not prejudice the rights of churches or other public or private organisations, the ethos of which is based on religion or belief … to require individuals working for them to act in good faith and with loyalty to the organisation's ethos."
Note the words "churches" and other "public" and "private organisations". The directive, it would seem, permits private organisations to be exempt in certain appropriate cases. The question is whether the regulations give a degree of exemption to private commercial concerns, as distinct from the Churches or what are described as "private organisations". The wording of the regulation could possibly be construed as only meaning, for example, organisations such as religious charities, environmental charities and so on. To illustrate that point, I have received a joint letter from three commercial companies that said,
"We are believers in the Lord Jesus. known … as the Brethren."
The letter continues,
"We operate small family orientated businesses where we are committed to maintain righteousness, truth, integrity and such moral standards as are set out in the Holy Scriptures.
We have a company ethos which sets out what is expected of all who work in our business … expecting all who work with us to …he loyal to that ethos …
As Christians we believe that all sexual activity outside marriage…is against the teachings of the Holy Bible and we feel the need to protect our … workplaces from anyone who because of their lifestyle or beliefs would tend to corrupt others."
I imagine the majority of people do not approve of the fundamentalist teachings of the Brethren, but one would have to say that they are based on their sincerely held beliefs. That is the point. Will the Minister, at a convenient moment for him to write, confirm whether these companies will, or will not, be forced to employ people who they consider do not live up to their very high moral standards? Will he confirm that the organisations that may enjoy exemption on genuine grounds include ordinary commercial concerns? I emphasise the word "genuine".
We welcome these regulations and would not dream of opposing them.
Lord Brennan: My Lords, I raise a particular problem about these regulations while otherwise welcoming them very warmly. The problem relates to Regulation 20, which rightly applies the regulations to institutions of further and higher education. The problem arises as to what is comprised by that phrase,
"institutions of further and higher education".
Regulation 17 expressly excludes schools, but there exist in this country 16 Catholic sixth-form colleges, which ordinary folk would call schools. However, for funding purposes various statutory provisions in recent years have assigned sixth-form colleges into the category of further education. So by dint of one entirely discrete legislative provenance those sixth-form colleges on the face of these regulations are caught by Regulation 20, by its use of the phrase "further education".
That is an anomaly that needs some attention because the directive seeks to protect employment opportunity. It uses the phrase "vocational training"
792
obviously in the sense of tertiary and higher education at that level. The anomaly is accentuated by the fact that under Section 30 of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992, and a statutory instrument made under it in 2001, these sixth-form colleges are required by the legislation to operate in accordance with their Catholic trust deed; in other words, to provide places for Catholics. But this regulation would make that legislative intent on its face not tenable, or even illegal.
That is a significant problem because the 16 schools to which I referred are situated mostly in areas of significant deprivation and need, and most of them are successful. In the provision that they make for education only a small amount of what they provide is what might be termed "vocational"—craftwork and so on. It is therefore the position that by the combination of all those rather unusual circumstances the regulations catch a set of schools which can hardly have been regarded as the intent of the directive. Those problems have been—
Lord Wedderburn of Charlton: My Lords, could the noble Lord add to our knowledge on this matter? May I say that in asking that question I have very great sympathy with the case that he is advancing? Could he say whether these 16 bodies are supported by public funds?
Lord Brennan: My Lords, they come within the funding arrangements of various education Acts which have been passed by this House. But the fact is that in most of them the balance between Catholic and non-Catholic is about—I say "about" in a broad sense—55 per cent Catholic, 45 per cent non-Catholic. They are seeking to meet a local need as well as preserving to that small extent places for those of the Catholic faith.
Representatives of the Catholic Church have met various representatives of the ministry and the problem has been looked at afresh. It clearly seems to represent an anomaly. I know that the Government are considering the matter and I have made these points simply to place them on the record should we ever have to revisit this question.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the definition of "religion" under Regulation 2 is not a very precise one. It simply states:
"In these Regulations, 'religion or belief' means any religion, religious belief, or similar philosophical belief".
It is clearly the intention that where people have strongly held views, which include humanism, or atheism or agnosticism, they would be covered under the phrase "or similar philosophical belief".
The noble Lord, Lord Lester, referred to his Parliamentary Question. I believe that was the Question in which he asked Her Majesty's Government to what extent the submissions received on the draft equality regulations had argued for the use of primary rather than secondary legislation or for a single equality Act extending beyond the employment

793
field. I am sorry that the reply did not reach the noble Lord. I rescued it from the burning embers of the Lord Chancellor's Office. It states:
"Of the 620 responses to Equality and Diversity: The Way Ahead, published in October 2002,18 or 3 per cent said they would have preferred the Government to use primary legislation rather than secondary legislation as a way of implementing the employment and race directives. Sixteen responses, 3 per cent, suggested that new legislation on sexual orientation, religion and age should extend beyond the field of employment. In both cases the responses came from unions, faith groups and other representative bodies. One hundred and six—39 per cent—respondents to the parallel consultation on the future of Great Britain's equality institutions, Equality and Diversity: Making it Happen, argued for measures to harmonise anti-discrimination legislation, in particular through a single equality Act".
794
I will sign that answer off tomorrow and let the noble Lord have it.
Lord Lester of Herne Hill: My Lords, of course, quality as well as quantity matters.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, so far as the questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, and the noble Lord, Lord Brennan, are concerned, I think it best if I follow the points up and give a considered answer by letter tomorrow. I commend the regulations to the House.

Licensing Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with amendments and with a privilege amendment; it was moved that the Commons amendments be printed.
House adjourned at five minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Local Government Bill
  (Sixth Day)
  Tuesday, 17th June 2003.
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton) in the Chair.]
  Clause 78 [Statutory revaluation cycle]:
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): If Amendment No. 169 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 170 by reason of pre-emption.
  [Amendment No. 169 not moved.]
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 170:
  Page 40, line 33, leave out "tenth" and insert "fifth"
  The noble Earl said: This simple amendment seeks to find out why the Government want revaluations. I recall our discussions on a Local Government Bill in the early 1990s on this. At the time, the whole point of the revaluation and setting the hands was to avoid the hassle of future revaluations, but the Government want to change that. They seek now a revaluation every 10 years.
  What is the point of doing a revaluation in the first place and, furthermore, what is the point of revaluing every tenth year rather than every fifth year? I beg to move.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: In speaking to Amendment No. 171, I want to state clearly that I believe that revaluation does matter. Yesterday evening we touched on the matter of change in property values which distorts valuations and the need to value new properties. The impact of that is very important on the resource equalisation grant. Money going to local authorities reflects council tax valuations and the SIGOMA authorities, of which I am the vice-chairman, have calculated that some £250 million is being lost to those authorities because of the lack of a revaluation.
  It goes without saying that house prices rise more rapidly in the most prosperous areas. Therefore, the areas which are most deprived are the ones that lose out on the resource equalisation grant. So this does matter.
  I understand why my noble friend has set a period of 10 years for revaluation, because of the labour costs and administrative difficulties associated with doing it on a more frequent basis. Furthermore, as we touched
  GC 224
  on yesterday, politics and public reactions come into this, which leads to further delays and a certain amount of resistance.
  If we keep to the 10-year cycle of revaluation and if the current rate of house price inflation is sustained over that period, then by the end we could see differentials in value of between 60 per cent and more than 150 per cent of current values. Those differentials matter because, as I said, in turn they will impact upon grant.
  My amendment proposes a very simple process of refreshing house price valuations on a regular, annual basis. These days data on changes in house prices can readily be made available. That data from the private sector is available locally and on a regional basis. Indeed, it could be used as a guide to changes in house price values. I fully accept that this may be something of a rough guide for individual properties, but then as I pointed out at Second Reading, the whole process of council tax valuation in the first place was hardly an exact science.
  Over the 10-year cycle, we will be able to correct for any minor amendments that have taken place. if a system of annual refreshments were established, I think that we would have a much smoother and more publicly acceptable change and, of course, any such changes would be small.
  I hardly dare mention this, but some years ago, after moving an amendment to a Finance Bill in another place, my noble friend on the Front Bench earned a place in political history for recognising the importance of making tax systems reflect inflationary pressures. Obviously he thought that was extremely important. I hope that he will now think carefully about whether we could do something similar in terms of property taxation.
  Baroness Maddock: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the noble Lord particularly given our debate yesterday and the fact that, without any fixed time for revaluing, whether a long time or a short time, one ends up with huge problems. It is never the right time to do it. This morning I was interested to read in the newspaper yet again what has happened to house prices. The newspapers seem able to say one week that house prices are falling, and the next that the situation has stabilised and the market is on track—as the reports told us this morning. If we can be given that information each week in the newspaper, there is some evidence to back up the noble Earl's proposal that we should revalue more regularly.My only point, which I suspect the Minister will address in his reply, is on the problem with people appealing against valuations. When I first entered another place the first council tax valuations were being done. My caseload in surgeries was very heavy with people appealing against which band their house was going into. Perhaps we could deal with the problem more effectively by means of modern

  GC 225
  technology; I do not know. However, that is the big question that we will have to solve if we are going to go along with the noble Earl's amendment.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to noble Lords for stimulating this discussion about the revaluation periods. We set out our policy in the White Paper. In that we said that there should be a 10-yearly cycle of revaluations with the first one taking effect in 2007. 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. Presumably for their own reasons the government of the time thought that that was not a wise thing to do. We think that it is necessary. That is why we have the clauses before us and why we seek approval for them.
  Amendments Nos. 169, 170 and 171 look at the issue of frequency. Amendment No. 169 would require the valuation list to be updated annually from 1st April 2007, based on an index of housing prices for the local authority area. Amendment No. 170 would require the tax revaluation to be at least every five years, compared with the current Clause 78 which requires them to be every 10 years. Amendment No. 171 seeks to overlay Clause 78 with a requirement to have an annual revision of the valuation list by the billing authority.
  We have carefully considered the frequency issue. It is not necessary for a council tax revaluation to be as frequent as every year—although I recognise the point that house prices constantly vary—because council tax is based on a broad valuation principle. So revaluation is to be used effectively but sparingly at the right time. It is worth reminding ourselves how large the volume of revaluations would be—some 20 million domestic properties. That is a massive exercise. It might be good for those carrying out the valuations, but not necessarily so good in terms of keeping data in place, up to date and timely.
  The proposal for a 10-year cycle means that council tax revaluation will follow two years after every second business rate revaluation, so the work would be staggered. We think that that strikes the right balance and does not put an unacceptable burden on the Valuation Office Agency which is to undertake both revaluations.
  We accept that with greater use of computer-aided valuation techniques it may be possible to undertake valuations at a much lower cost. So it is possible that a future government might wish to have a shorter cycle of revaluation. That is why Clause 78 has been drafted to allow the period between revaluations to be less than 10 years.
  We believe that the amendments, which require annual reassessments, would be unduly inflexible, especially as our clause allows for the possibility of revaluations more often than every 10 years. Given the position of the Government on the 10-year cycle and
  GC 226
  the flexibility that it gives to a future government, Clause 78 seems right and appropriate. I suggest that the noble Earl may wish to withdraw his amendments.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: Obviously I cannot tempt my noble friends to make a contribution on this matter in view of its history, but never mind.
  I understand that a revaluation is expensive and involves many people. However, I have checked with my treasurer, who feels that a fairly junior officer could put a simple multiplier on house valuations in a couple of days each year, in about September. That could be embraced within the new council tax valuations which we normally announce in December. So it is not such a problem in terms of administration.
  I recognise that the Government want a fundamental revaluation. The Minister said that they would look at a more regular revaluation to avoid some of the political difficulties that governments have got into in the past. Even the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, said that the previous government brought in the poll tax as a way of re-evaluating the old rate system. So we can see what kind of political difficulties governments can get into over revaluation. Having said that, I will not press my amendment.
  The Earl of Caithness: I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, that the Government will get themselves into a right tangle on this. To delay revaluation to every tenth year will involve a load of agony. By the time 2007 comes along my noble friend Lord Hanningfield will be the Minister in charge and taking the flak in regard to revaluation.
  I was interested in what the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, said. I should caution her, in the best way that I can, not to believe what she reads in the press about house prices. I could never correlate what the press was saying with what was happening in our estate agency. I did not understand from where the press got its figures. Yes, you can get some quite accurate figures from certain mortgage companies and the RICS, but they reflect general trends. As she will know, house prices can vary significantly from one end of a street to the other and to a greater degree within a larger area.
  As regards my Amendment No. 170, the Minister did not give any good justification for having a 10-year revision cycle. He briefly mentioned the question of costs, on which I thought he would concentrate, but he then said that there would be computer-assisted mass appraisal techniques and that costs could come down rapidly. With the enhancement of computer technology, that is something that could be done and could reduce the costs.
  I hope that the Minister will give further consideration to this matter between now and another stage. The 10-year revaluation will be problematical for local authorities and individual owners. Would the Minister like to add to what he said? It would appear that he does not.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I wish only to say that yesterday the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, was

  GC 227
  refreshingly frank about the problems that confronted his own government. We are determined not to get into that kind of tangle.
  The Earl of Caithness: The noble Lord will get into exactly that tangle with a 10-year revaluation cycle. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment for the time being.
  Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 171 not moved.]
  3.45 p.m.
  On Question, Whether Clause 78 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Hanningfield: We had a long discussion about this last night. When we started the debate, I questioned the need for a revaluation at all. When the council tax was introduced, the idea was that it would not need revaluations. We have heard various arguments in favour of revaluations because of the change in property values.
  The reason for introducing the community charge was because the rates became unacceptable and there had been revaluations. I remember it quite well—it was in my early days in local government. There were a lot of horror stories about the original revaluation in Scotland, leading to the introduction of the community charge which, because it was unpopular, eventually led to the council tax. Perhaps the Government wish to go down the road of unpopularity. As I said, governments tend not to win elections immediately after a revaluation, although perhaps it might be good to have one in that it would provide good ammunition for Conservatives in future general elections.
  I believe this part of the Bill will cause a lot of people a lot of anxiety. Therefore it is unnecessary. I object to the Question that Clause 78 stand part.
  The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): I will respond briefly because we can come back to this at another stage if a vote is required. Many Conservative councillors in some of the northern towns and cities, where they won a lot of seats recently, will greatly benefit from revaluation for their communities simply on the grounds that the ratios have become wrong over a period of time because house prices do not rise at the same level across the country. It is quite a selfish approach to say that the level that has been set should take no account of the changes in values.
  We have a property tax system. If we had a local income tax system, the effect would be the same. We need a regulator. This is like the old rating system in that it is fixed, but the idea that nothing should change is barmy. As my noble friend says, we will handle the new system with great care. It will be handled with discretion, transparency, fairness and inclusivity to make sure it appeals to this one nation. I think there are some one nation Tories still about.
  GC 228
  This property tax is implicit in the system introduced by the previous Conservative administration but we must take account of changes in property values. I realise that this could lead to a significant political battle. We have done it before and, being a responsible government, we will not flinch at taking on the forces of unfairness and those who seek an advantage for the few rather than the many. All the tried-and-tested slogans will be brought out; we have done it twice and will do it a third time.
  It is very unfair simply to argue that there should not be a revaluation to take account of changes. You could not make the same argument for non-domestic rates in terms of changes in rent for office buildings. I do not know much about that area but there are massive variations across the country due to location and region. This is taken into account in the commercial sector. In this case, it is very important, in terms of fairness for local authorities, to have a system that takes account of change.I know the argument which asks: why 10 years, why not eight or 15? Ten years has been agreed—this is nothing new, as I said yesterday. There has been a Green Paper, a White Paper and a draft Bill. This is no surprise to anybody.
  Lord Hanningtield: I should like to deploy this argument now, as it is very relevant to the next set of amendments as well.
  The Minister said several times that the council tax is a property tax. But it is not just a property tax. When we had a property tax; it was in the form of rates, which became very unpopular. As a young councillor. I remember the then Leader of the Opposition, Margaret Thatcher, pledging to thousands of people, at some meetings, to abolish this unpopular tax. Rates had risen to a very high level for some people, particularly elderly people who have been living in their own home for a long time. She pledged that, and that is why we ended up with the community charge, which was basically a tax on the individual. If it had been introduced gradually, over some years, it would probably still be in place. But it was introduced in a rather ham-fisted way and was therefore very unpopular in some parts of the country.
  We then had a combined tax—the current council tax. I remember Kenneth Baker, then a junior Minister and now a Member of your Lordships' House, explaining the changes to us. It was part property tax, part individual tax. It was not just a property tax when Michael Heseltine—now also a Member of your Lordships' House—introduced it.
  One must therefore be careful, because the way that revaluation is going, together with the next series of amendments dealing with bands, will make it much more of a property tax. The worst will come upon the government who do that. Property taxes are very unpopular. The Minister said two or three times that it was a property tax; I dispute that. It was never

  GC 229
  designed as entirely a property tax; it was designed as part individual tax for services and part property tax. I dispute what he said.
  Lord Rooker: I have only one point to make. I suspect that in the good county of Essex, thousands of people will during the past few years have looked at the equity that they had in their property and thought, "I will have some of that for the holiday, the car, or the daughter's wedding". So they are quite happy in those circumstances to say, "Yes, we have a bigger increase in property values than anyone else; we will have some of that equity out, thank you very much".
  But then the noble Lord says that they are not prepared to pay their fair share, based on that increase in property value, a little of which they have taken out, to put it into the community kitty for libraries, for old folks' meals on wheels, for local services or for having the gutters cleaned or the snow cleared away. That is what it is all about. When we make those sort of connections, I think that I can appeal more to people's natural community instincts than to the naked, selfish, party-political interest pushed by the noble Lord.
  Lord Hanningfield: We shall return to the argument under the next clause, so I shall not oppose the Question.
  Clause 78 agreed to.
  Clause 79 [Power to change number of valuation bands]:
  Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 172:
  Page 41, line 32, at end insert "provided that such change does not alter the ratio between the top and bottom band.
  ( ) The power under subsection (4A) shall not be used to alter the ratio between the top and bottom bands set out in subsection (1)."
  The noble Lord said: We return to the issue, because the clause gives the Secretary of State power to change bands. I shall be told straight away that the amendments do this or that and should be worded differently, but we can always reword them and return to them later. Giving the Secretary of State the power to change bands is a big issue in the Bill.
  Returning to what I said earlier, and to respond to the Minister, more people in Essex are not taking equity out of their houses; they are having a job to pay their mortgages, because they are having to pay high prices for houses. Essex is now a place with many young people who work in London, all of whom have bigger mortgages than they can really afford. They may have a very nice, expensive house—that is what you have to pay in the South East—but they cannot afford their mortgages. Therefore, to say that there will be a higher band and that they will pay a higher council tax will be very unpopular.
  We therefore totally dispute that there is a need to change many bands. I appreciate that my amendment would move beyond the original 1992 legislation by imposing a limit on the band differentiation. That is why I propose this safeguard. I repeat: council tax is part property tax and part tax on services. It would not be right, or in conformity with the principles under
  GC 230
  which council tax was established, simply to replicate in council tax ratios the difference in banded house prices. The fact that council tax pays in part for services must act as a drag on the growth of bands or the increase of ratios between them. As the Minister said, it pays for services—clearing snow, social services and everything else.
  Local citizens are contributing the majority of their council tax to education and social services. They are by far the largest services provided by local authorities. For example, in Essex, expenditure on those services is probably responsible for 60 per cent of the average council tax bill. As I said, young people living in expensive properties, perhaps sending their children to private school and paying privately for the care of their parents, may not benefit from those services at all. That is fine; that is their choice. But we cannot have a tax that is part service-based and ask some members of the community to pay five or six times what other members of the community pay, regardless of their level of service use. That would do nothing to promote the cohesion of local communities.
  We are also in an age in which mortgage companies seem to be prepared to lend more and more money against smaller incomes. I repeat: people living in large houses are carrying relatively high levels of debt. From several angles, the value of a property seems an unsafe proxy for the ability to pay. We should be cautious about changing the structure of the tax system.
  I am not absolutely wedded to the existing ratio. However, it would be helpful if the Government were to introduce a ceiling on the ratio mechanism. When there is already so much unrest about levels of council tax, it would be helpful if the Minister could reassure people that there will be no move to increase the existing band ratios.
  I repeat, we are in danger of the council tax becoming as unpopular as the rates. I know that we are looking at new ways of funding local government, but why do so by making the council tax as unpopular as the rates were in, say, 1979? I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: I do not have a great deal of sympathy with the amendment being moved or the amendment that was spoken to. When it comes to paying council tax, I am more concerned about people at the bottom end of the scale than I am about people at the top end of the scale.
  I am pleased that the Government will have the ability to change the bands, particularly for those who pay council tax on park homes and mobile homes, or whatever you want to call them. Often they are used by elderly people on very low incomes who have chosen to live in park homes on sites partly because they are very safe places for elderly people to live. These people often have to live on quite low incomes, and yet they have in the past ended up with their property being a good deal lower than band A. It is not quite the same now but it is important that the Government should have the ability to change the number of bands.
  Those at the very top end of the scale—although not absolutely; I must be careful about this—are, on the whole, in a better position to pay the tax than others.

  GC 231
  As to the question of whether or not this is a property tax, it is quite clearly a property tax. It cannot be anything else. It is based on the band value of your property—and that is it.
  Having listened to the exchanges between the Conservative Benches and the Government, I am even more convinced about the rightness of local income tax. It is based on people's ability to pay, which is the important criteria. All taxation should be fairly based on people's ability to pay. The council tax has become incredibly unpopular—I believe it has become as unpopular as the poll tax—particularly with people on low incomes and elderly people. This is because of the connection between the amount of money that the Government give to local government in various grants and so on and the gearing effect between that and the amount of money that councils can raise from local tax. That is one of the reasons why the council tax has become unpopular.
  I do not agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that this is not really a property tax, nor that it is popular. It has become a very unpopular tax and I hope that it will be replaced. If it is not to be replaced, I would support measures to ensure that it operates in a fairer way than it has done, particularly in regard to helping people on low incomes who have to pay a very high council tax.
  4 p.m.
  The Earl of Caithness: Purely in property terms there is a case for the Government's argument because of the bunching at the top end and at the bottom end. Certainly there are areas where the current spread of bands works well, but it does not work well in every area. I agree with my noble friend Lord Hanningfield that, by opening this Pandora's box and giving local authorities the right to have varying and different bands—which inevitably will be used—the council tax will become the rates.
  I should say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that the council tax was not intended to be purely a property tax when we introduced it. One should not fall into the same trap as was the case with rates of believing that people who live in large houses automatically have the ability to pay large sums of money.
  Baroness Maddock: I did qualify my comment; I did say that it is not always like that. The point that I was making is that that is likely to be the case with the very top band.
  The Earl of Caithness: Wherever we draw the line, wherever the top band, the second top hand or the third top band is, there will be cases of hardship. This was the problem with rates. I remember it so well from the mid to late 1980s. We will have exactly the same problem with council tax. Once we have opened this Pandora's box and we start to tinker and spread the bands, the same will happen and there will be a huge outcry. I say that to the Government once more in the hope that they will listen to me.
  Baroness Hanham: I support my noble friend's amendment. It is worth reminding ourselves about
  GC 232
  several things in regard to the introduction of the council tax. First, it is true that it is not entirely a property tax. It is based on two people living in a property, as are the discounts thereafter. The whole premise was that there would be two people living in a property. Thereafter, other people would not be charged and there would be discounts based on that premise.
  We need to remind ourselves that at quite a late stage in the implementation of council tax another band—band H—was introduced at the last minute to take account of the higher value of property. It is true that property values have risen, but they have risen in all bands and in most parts of the country. Where they have not risen, it does not matter. The whole purpose of the way in which the council tax was constructed—my noble friend knows more about this than I do—was that there should be a mid-point, bands C and D, and a ratio between that mid point and other hands which would go down or up according to the value of the property. So, effectively, although revaluation may take place, the ratio should not change; the same amount should be paid in the lower bands and the same amount should be paid in the upper bands.
  Once one begins tinkering with that, one begins calling into question the amount that is raised under council tax. One begins to call into question all that the Chancellor has done to ensure that council tax increases—and he certainly has increased the whole ratio of council tax to grant during his years as Chancellor.
  But throughout there has been a continuity of expectation of how much one would have to pay. It is right that we are beginning to look at what people used to be paying in rates. At Band H level, people are paying £2,500 to £3,000 as their council tax contribution. One may say that that is fine, but the problem outlined by the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, then arises; that some people in the upper bands are not well off and the increase in their property value has not been reflected in their income.
  The noble Lord, Lord Rooker, mentioned equity release schemes. I would be most cautious about getting involved in those arid talking about their value and purpose. They are a dubious entity. One has only to read the money pages in the newspapers to discover what has happened to elderly people who have taken equity release schemes to pay for their daughter's wedding or whatever. It is not a form of investment to which anyone is attracted and it is a poor rationale for suggesting any justification for an increase in council tax bands.
  It is probably true that the percentage increase in property has not been the same across all bands. However, the justification for the original thesis that there would be a ratio between the bottom and the top, that it would be recognisable annually, and that only a certain proportion of the local authority's money was to be raised from council tax needs to be preserved. However, it is not likely to he preserved

  GC 233
  under these clauses. That is the rationale behind our amendments. I can see that the Minister will not agree with them, but we shall not want to drop the matter.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: I do not like to intervene too much in the debate—I like to leave it to my noble friend to reply—but must do so on this occasion. I have even less sympathy for some of the views which have come from the other side.
  Let us remember that the council tax was the quick fix to get rid of the poll tax. The poll tax was probably the most unpopular measure ever to he introduced in this country since the Second World War and the Conservatives were desperate to get rid of it. They had to put something in its place. That was a property-based tax with certain amendments about numbers in properties and so forth. Clearly it is a step-tax so the more valuable the property the more one pays.
  Members of the Committee opposite do not seem to understand the negative aspects of what they are saying. If we do not make the changes proposed by the Government and reform council tax banding, the people in the lowest council tax bands will be paying more than their fair share of council tax. That is exceedingly the case. In my authority, 70 per cent of properties are currently in bands A and B. The number in the current Band H is so minuscule that it does not register.
  That is the case in many other areas; we are not unique. If we do not reform the tax and raise more money from those who can afford to pay because they can afford to buy the larger properties, people in smaller properties will be paying a disproportionate amount of the council tax.
  The other mistake the Government made with the council tax—and this went back to the poll tax—was to make the amount of money which local authorities raise so small as a proportion that there is no connection between what a local authority does financially and the change in its council tax. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, was saying just that.
  The Government have therefore begun their balance of funding review, which is right. If we are to have a sensible form of local government in which the local authorities are accountable for what they do and the people understand that the council tax increases because their decisions are important, we need to shift the balance between central to local taxation. I do not believe that the council tax is capable of paying a larger proportion.
  My key message to the Government is that they must continue because a revaluation without reform is not good enough to support the poorest people in this country.
  Baroness Hamwee: Council tax was a quick-fix but it is becoming unfixed, as everyone is saying. On Friday evening, I was listening, although not with 100 per cent attention, to "Any Questions?". A throw-away line from someone about council tax being such a bad tax seemed to receive the biggest round of applause during
  GC 234
  the whole programme. However, not every area is like that which the noble Lord, Lord Smith of Leigh, knows so well. The top band, which people no longer regard as the top—Band H—covers an enormous variety of house prices and values. I have noticed that Members of the Committee have been speaking without notes. We all feel so strongly about it and I will try to resist the temptation to speak at length. As usual. I agree with my noble friend Lady Maddock that the sooner council tax comes to an end and we achieve a sensible system of local income tax the better.
  I want to throw one other issue into the mix. I am not wholly sure of my facts and I am sure that others will know them. I believe that the council tax benefit relief scheme goes up only to bands F or G. However, there are issues surrounding whether the relief is available in the top bands. A leader of a London council mentioned it to me recently. Regard must be given to the fact that occasionally occupants of homes at the top end are not only strapped for cash but have a low income and ought to qualify.
  Lord Rooker: I shall stick to my notes in order to be brief. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, some of the points I made in respect of other amendments apply to this matter.
  Amendment No. 172 would restrict the powers to change the ratio of 3:1 between the top and bottom bands. I do not know how many people in a town at the top of Band A (£40,000) realise that those at the bottom of Band H (£320,000)—eight times the amount—pay only three times the amount of the council tax. I guarantee that no one in a town would know that unless they were a local government cognoscenti or aficionado, with their eyes glazed over when they see all the local government balance sheets and think they are wonderful. But there is sheer ignorance because people believe that as band H is eight times higher than band A they must be paving more than three times the amount of council tax.
  Baroness Hanham: Every year the annual statement from the council which goes to council tax payers informs what people are paying in band A and band H. I am sure that the education system of this country just about enables people to work out the differential between the top and the bottom. It is by no means secret information and anyone who reads it cannot possibly be in ignorance about it.
  Lord Rooker: They see a table of figures but they do not know how it comes about. People read their own tables. It is not stated on the documents that the figures are artificially depressed because of the requirement of the 3:1 ratio. That is not set out. That was a deliberate fix and it was introduced so that the Hoogstraatens of this world—and he cannot be a Tory voter because he is in prison at the moment, so I do not want to attack anyone in particular for having a mansion—
  Baroness Hanham: I would be grateful if the Minister would withdraw that comment. It was my council which got Hoogstraaten and he was not a joke. He was a very, very serious crook. The noble Lord,

  GC 235
  Lord Bassam, may recognise that he is not someone to be even moderately joked about in terms of council tax. He was against all his tenants, not the council. The Minister's comment was ill-advised.
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: If [ have upset the noble Baroness, I withdraw my comments without equivocation. I am thinking of the photographs of the vast mansion that is being constructed. It is a huge project and will be worth heaven-knows-what when it is finished. The idea that it would be in the upper band and the owner pay only three times what would in some respects be a modern hovel—a badly looked-after dwelling in whatever band—worth perhaps £20,000 and much less than £40,000, belies common sense. That is not set out. agree that the figures are set out—I would argue that not everyone reads them—but they are artificially constrained because of the 3:1 ratio.
  I want to make it clear that we have not yet decided whether there will be changes in the ratio, but it does not make sense to limit our powers in this area, especially as we know that the existing ratio does not reflect the relative spread of values.
  I remember the debates when the measure was introduced and the reason for the 3:1 ratio was naked. It was so that the big mansions—houses worth millions 10 years ago—did not pay a fairer share. I accept that the fairer share depends on where one is standing, but it was so that such people did not pay a run-away amount of money. The amount was artificially constrained and there were big rows about the 3:1 ratio when it was introduced. I do not believe that Michael Heseltine—now the noble Lord, Lord Heseltine—was modest and contrite about the reasons why he fixed it that way. In bringing in a new tax based on property values, he had to be careful for those at the top. There was a concern about that and it was a quick-fix to replace the poll tax. Therefore, it is a crude ratio because it bears no relation to the spread of values.
  We have no plans for changing the ratio but Amendment No. 172 would unnecessarily restrict any future attempt to do so. Any changes in the ratios, like the changes in the bands, that are wholly unreasonable and not properly explained would reap the whirlwind of the ballot box. There is no question of that. I know that the council tax can be unpopular but it is not quite so unpopular as the rates. As regards the rates, unlike the council tax, no one understood how a rateable value was fixed. With more than 50 per cent owner occupation, it made no sense to talk about notional rental values with figures from history. No one understood it. I accept that there is a greater degree of understanding of the council tax because it was based on a valuation, however crude, as a ready-reckoner value. But we all know that every house was not visited.
  Amendment No. 174 would also restrict the ability of the Secretary of State to exercise the powers to change the number of valuation bands. It would mean that no dwelling could be placed in a valuation band higher than it would have been if the bands had simply
  GC 236
  been uprated in line with movement in an index of house prices. That means that the Government could not make any significant reforms to the banding scheme. It would limit how we could uprate the bands and prevent the creation of new hands at the top end. For that matter, it would probably prevent the creation of new bands at the bottom end. I have been in northern towns where the housing market has collapsed with values of £10,000 and less. There are serious issues.
  My memory is good, but I have discovered that it gets worse as you get older. I was convinced that the previous government changed the number of bands. I was adamant to officials about that. I remember an issue about the number of bands but I could not remember the context. It is interesting to note that when the council tax was first invented and brought forward by the then Michael Heseltine, there were only seven bands in the paving Bill. The top band was £160,000. However, when the Bill came forward setting up the council tax there were eight hands, the top one at £320,000. I knew that there had been a change from the original plan. In that respect, there was movement between the draft plan and the Bill. The Government did not therefore change the scheme once it was introduced with eight hands. The eight bands existed when the legislation was introduced but that was not part of the original plan. Even then there was an attempt to say, "Hang on, we have been a hit unfair and we need to do something about it. Have an extra band at the top level". There was an acceptance even then that something needed to be done.
  I understand Members' concern about the exercise of the power, but they are needlessly trying to constrain its exercise. I can assure them that any attempt to try to change the bands and the ratio will be subject to affirmative procedure and could not be slipped in by the backdoor. Everyone would know about it because it would he a major change. We believe that the appropriate parliamentary scrutiny of the exercise of power exists if ever a government wanted to make a change.
  I repeat that we have no plans for changing the current system. I suspect that until there has been a national revaluation to examine the distribution curves of valuation changes between 2005 and 2007 as compared with 1990–91 one cannot even begin to debate the issue. There are not facts on which to do so and one would not want a debate on the basis of a hunch or prejudice. We have no plans for changing the system. I suspect that the matter will return to us but I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that response. We have had an interesting debate. Obviously, the world in the South East is greatly different from the world described by the noble Lord opposite. In the South East values have changed dramatically.
  In most of the counties around London, probably everyone living in houses worth more than £400,000 votes new Labour and everyone living in houses worth

  GC 237
  less than that votes Conservative or Liberal Democrat. If the Government were to introduce the new bands, they might be losing their seats in the South East on which they depend for their large majority. We might then return to more traditional voting patterns.
  Joking apart, we will return to the matter at a later stage and in the mean time I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 173, I should inform Members of the Committee that the Chairman of Committees has said that if they wish to take their jackets off they may do
  so.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 173:
  Page 41, line 32, at end insert—
  "( ) Any order made under this section may apply to a billing authority or any number of billing authorities.""
  The noble Lord said: The amendment needs to be considered in the context of caveats incorporated in other amendments on the council tax band structure. Its purpose is to enable the Secretary of State to exercise greater flexibility when changing the banding structure to reflect local diversity.
  The amendment would allow the Secretary of State to take account of local variations in the housing market—we have referred to them a great deal—by enabling him to apply measures under this clause to particular billing authorities, or to groups of billing authority in a particular area.
  We all know that the housing market in different parts of the country may operate in different ways—we have not had a house valued at £40,000 in Essex for many years. A power to reflect that in the banding structure would introduce a measure of flexibility into the system that could more accurately take into account this local diversity.
  We welcome provisions within this Bill to enable local authorities to respond to the needs of the local community and we would like to see this extended to the valuation bands on the property. Any assurance that the Minister can give that local needs will not be neglected in the formation of a new system of council tax band would be most welcome. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: We resist the amendment not because we oppose it but because it is unnecessary. The powers already exist. The powers to change council tax bands or the proportions between them are covered in an order under Section 5 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Section 113(1) of that Act makes it clear that powers to make orders under provisions of that Act, including Section 5,
  "may be so exercised as to make different provision for different cases or different descriptions of cases, including different provision for different areas or for different authorities".
  GC 238
  In short, translated into English, that covers the point that the noble Lord has raised. The capacity already exists but I am informed that the power has never been used. I believe that that answers the noble Lord's point.
  Lord Hanningfield: That is an interesting answer and we shall study it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 174 not moved.]
  On Question, Whether Clause 79 shall be agreed to?
  Lord Hanningfield: I shall not go into the long and interesting debate we had on the power of the Secretary of State. I am sure that we shall repeat it on the Floor of the House several times during later stages of the Bill. At this stage, I put on record my objection to Clause 79 standing part of the Bill.
  Lord Rooker: I rise simply to say that we oppose that objection.
  Clause 79 agreed to.
  Clause 80 [Transitional arrangements]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 175:
  Page 42, line 13, leave out "different from" and insert "lower than"
  The noble Lord said: As the Bill stands, the Secretary of State has the power to alter the council tax bands, and dwellings may move up or down the bands as a result of revaluation. This clause makes provision for the Government to phase in changes to council tax bills following revaluation. In contrast to the previous system where, as I understand it, tax payers could pay less only during transitional arrangements, under this legislation tax payers might have to contribute more during the transitional period to offer relief to those who will be worse off. This amendment would ensure that a householder's council tax liability cannot be higher in the transitional period than it would otherwise have been before the revaluation.
  We accept that the precise detail of the transitional arrangements will depend upon the outcomes of the revaluation. However, it is important that we have some clarity on how these provisions will work. As I understand the wording of the Bill, it would allow for what is known as "downward phasing". That is that where a person's tax liability has gone down relative to the average, he does not benefit immediately and in full from the corresponding reduction in council tax. Instead, part of the money that would have come off his council tax bill is used to offset the rise for the others in their council tax bills. It is a complicated issue and I hope that people understand it.
  Of course we support transitional arrangements to cushion the effect of tax changes in council tax liability. Our amendment is compatible with the existing system of transitional payments which does not permit taxpayers to pay more during a transitional period than they did before revaluation. We believe

  GC 239
  that this principle should be maintained under the new system. I should be grateful for the Minister's views on this and I beg to move.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: We have said in Committee on a number of occasions that the system works best when it is the simplest, and we subscribe strongly to that principle. However, as we set out in our White Paper, there has to be a transitional relief scheme following council tax revaluation. We are committed to ensuring that that is self-financing in much the same way as the transitional relief scheme will be for business rate payers. We are firmly of the view that the gainers should contribute towards the costs of the losers for that transitional period.
  I take the point made by the noble Lord, but again the principle I have outlined is worth sticking to. The amendment would prevent that balance in the transitional scheme. The noble Lord said that he would like to see more detail on the kind of scheme we are likely to introduce. It is a little too early to specify exactly how it will work. Obviously we must hold detailed discussions, not least with the Local Government Association and other representative local government bodies, the professionals in the business and so forth. So we have to resist this amendment because it would take away the flexibility to change and perfect exactly what we want to do.
  Obviously we are in the business of perfecting this through the process of consultation and by taking careful professional advice. Thus, some of the fears expressed by the noble Lord about how the scheme will operate may be ill-founded. I hope that he will accept that there will be plenty of scope and opportunity for detailed consultation.
  Lord Hanningfield: What the Minister has said is important: the Government will consult and listen to those involved. This is a very complicated matter, but the transitional arrangements will be extremely important. I hope that, as the Bill progresses, the Government will continue to give assurances that they will listen to representations made about the transitional arrangements. Big changes could arise after the revaluation and I repeat what I said earlier about the problems that that could cause. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 176:
  Page 42, line 25, at end insert—
  "( ) No order under subsection (5) shall be made unless a draft of the order has been laid before and approved by resolution of the House of Commons.""
  The noble Lord said: This clause accords the Secretary of State power to alter social security benefits in accordance with the transitional arrangements which will follow revaluation, reflecting a point made in the last amendment. The purpose of this amendment is simply to clarify with the Minister
  GC 240
  what opportunity Parliament will have to scrutinise any changes to social security benefits that may be consequent on these changes to council tax.
  Can the Minister give an indication of the Secretary of State's intention with regard to this power, and how the transitional arrangements following revaluation may impact on current social security benefits? We would be grateful for clarification on this. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I do not have a great deal to add to what I said in response to the previous amendment. Having submitted a paper to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, we believe that the negative resolution procedure provides the appropriate level of scrutiny and that committee did not disagree. In fact, it made no comment at all.
  I believe that the noble Lord is seeking a form of reassurance on the details of the transitional relief scheme with regard to benefit payments and so forth. Again, I have to urge some caution here because we are at the earliest stages of working out all these issues. I repeat what I said when we discussed the previous amendment: there will be plenty of scope for discussion and consultation with those who will want to make representations in order to get the scheme right. Obviously a certain amount of cross-governmental work will come into that.
  Representations and consultation will be very important to the process we shall go through even before we reach the point where we introduce a scheme by order.
  Lord Hanningfield: Again I hear what the Minister has said. He has just pointed out that we are at a very early stage of working out the transitional relief scheme and how social security benefits will be affected. I thank the noble Lord for his response and take note of his remark that there will be wide consultation. Obviously one will want to make certain that that happens. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 80 agreed to.
  The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness moved Amendment No. 176A:
  Before Clause 81, insert the following new clause—
  "APPEALS
  In section 82(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 (c. 14) (appeal procedure) for "on a point of law to the Court of Session" there is substituted "to the Lands Tribunal"""
  The noble Earl said: This is a simple amendment. At present, if there is a dispute, the council tax payer can go to the valuation tribunal and, from that valuation tribunal, has an expensive and difficult time when going to the High Court. It would be much more sensible if, instead of going to the High Court, the person went to the Lands Tribunal. That is the purpose of this amendment and I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I am not clear about this. The noble Earl said that this is a simple proposal, but he did not

  GC 241
  mention that he was trying to legislate for Scotland in the amendment. Have I misunderstood something? The amendment applies exclusively to Scotland. The noble Earl is attempting here to legislate for Scotland, but as a part of the devolution arrangements it is agreed that we shall legislate for Scotland only at the request and with the agreement of the Scottish Executive. It does not support this amendment, nor does the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. However, the noble Earl did not mention Scotland in his brief remarks. There is no Court of Session.
  This deals with Scotland, because that is the area covered by Section 82(4) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. Again, have I misunderstood the noble Earl?
  The Earl of Caithness: On re-reading the amendment, I think that the noble Lord probably has not misunderstood me. I sought to focus on the position in England and I did not mention Scotland specifically. However, I believe that the error must be entirely at my end and is related to the wording. I hope that the noble Lord will consider this as it relates to the English position, on which I sought to focus, rather than Scotland.
  Lord Rooker: I am glad that we are clear about it. I say that because Section 82 of the Local Government Finance Act 1992 provides for the appeal procedure for council tax in Scotland. It has nothing to do with England.
  On the substance of the issue, when it comes to points of law, we think that the best place to decide such matters is a court. That is what happens now in Scotland and it is also what happens now under different legislation in England and Wales. We think that this should continue and we do not consider that a change to the Lands Tribunal would be appropriate. This should continue in court, both in Scotland—if I can say that because the Executive has not asked for a change—and in England. However, that is provided for under different legislation. I make the point simply because I did not want to misunderstand the noble Earl.
  His point of substance, that of transferring these issues to the Lands Tribunal, whether in England or England and Wales, is one that we do not accept. A point of law should be dealt with by a court, not by a tribunal.
  The Earl of Caithness: I understand what the Minister is saying, but one of the consequences of my amendment would be to allow appeals on matters other than points of law. I know how highly restrictive the process is at present. A great advantage of going to the Lands Tribunal is that, not only is it a cheaper procedure, but it is possible to raise other issues. Broadening that remit would be a consequence of accepting my amendment.
  Lord Rooker: My briefing relates to the amendment before us. If there are other issues that do not relate to a point of law, then if the noble Earl would care to drop
  GC 242
  me a note about them, I would be happy to write to him in response. That would be preferable to going through the process of tabling amendments. However, I am afraid that I cannot expand on what I have said.
  The Earl of Caithness: I am grateful to the Minister. I shall certainly take up his offer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clauses 81 to 83 agreed to.
  Clause 84 [Major precepting authorities: combined fire authorities]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 177:
  Page 44, line 8, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: Clause 83 adds combined fire authorities to the list of major precepting authorities in Section 39(1) of the Local Government Finance Act 1992. The constituent authorities that make up a combined fire authority currently contribute to its expenses in proportion to their council tax base. Under the proposed arrangements, a combined fire authority could issue a precept for each financial year to the billing authorities in its area.
  The purpose of this amendment is to seek clarification from the Minister as to why CFAs should be treated differently in England and Wales. We would prefer to see equitable powers maintained for England and Wales, along with the equitable treatment of CFAs.
  Can the Minister explain why the National Assembly for Wales should be accorded the power to amend primary legislation by adding CFAs in Wales to the list of precepting authorities in Wales? I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: Clause 84 deals with the means by which fire authorities draw their revenue funding. At present, combined fire authorities in both England and Wales are funded by contributions from their constituent local authorities. Under the proposals in Clause 84(1), combined fire authorities in England will become major precepting authorities, which means that they will issue a precept under the financial billing authorities in their area, under Section 40 of the 1992 Act.
  The Welsh Assembly consulted on whether the combined fire authorities in Wales should become major precepting authorities in its policy statement entitled Freedom and Responsibility in Local Government, published in March 2002. The view which emerged from the consultation was that the present arrangements in Wales are working satisfactorily, reflecting the differences in local government, which is all-unitary in Wales, and the revenue funding distribution. Therefore, no change should be made.
  The enabling power set out in Clause 84(2) would allow the National Assembly for Wales to make an order to add Welsh fire authorities to the list of major precepting bodies, should circumstances change. Clause 84(3) provides that any such order would be

  GC 243
  subject to prior consultation by the National Assembly with representatives of local government interests in Wales.
  I hope that the noble Lord is reassured that the provisions of the Bill are in keeping with local views, after consultation in Wales. Given that, we see no reason to vary the outcome of a decision reached in Wales itself.
  Lord Hanningfield: I accept the Minister's explanation of the position and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 84 agreed to.
  Clauses 85 to 87 agreed.
  Clause 88 [Housing strategies and statements]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 178:
  Page 45, line 30, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (5),"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 178 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 179. The amendments refer to Part 7 of the Bill dealing with housing finance. I am sure that noble Lords are aware that, at the moment, while local housing strategies are currently prepared by local housing authorities, there is no statutory provision specifically requiring local housing authorities to have such strategies. Clause 87 introduces just such a statutory provision.
  I am not sure whether this brings welcome clarity and uniformity or whether it is an overly bureaucratic, overly regulatory, controlling and centralising scheme. Can local housing authorities not be trusted to devise their own housing strategies as they have always done?
  Amendments Nos. 178 and 179 do not challenge the fundamentals of this new housing strategy provision. What they do is to require the Government to pay for the cost of devising the strategy. The Minister replied to the same amendment moved in another place by saying that such an amendment,
  "might have been appropriate if we were imposing a new burden on local authorities".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee A, 11/02/03; col. 492.]
  He went on to point out that local authorities already have to provide housing strategies and housing revenue account business plans, but that the clause merely made them a statutory requirement.
  I have a few problems with the approach of the Minister in another place. This clause may mean that a local housing authority has to reassess its approach to housing strategy. Implementing a statutory strategy as set out in the Bill might well end up imposing a larger burden on local authorities and requiring an overhaul of the current system of dealing with housing. This would mean extra financial burdens in administrative costs.
  Our amendments suggest that it would be appropriate for the Government to provide a grant to fund any costs incurred by the changes in housing strategy which these clauses in the Bill introduce. On
  GC 244
  what basis do the Government believe that the proposed new system will be cost neutral? I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 179 would require the Secretary of State, or in Wales the National Assembly, to pay a grant to each local housing authority required to have a housing strategy equivalent to the cost of preparing that strategy.
  The amendment might have been appropriate if we were imposing a new burden on local authorities. However, housing strategies and housing revenue account business plans are already produced by authorities, although of course they are non-statutory. In Wales, authorities are already being asked by the National Assembly to produce local authority housing stock business plans. The move to place them on a statutory basis simply reflects the importance that the Government attach to them, and the general agreement that robust strategies and business plans are essential to the effective delivery of local authorities' housing responsibilities. Moreover, they have a key role to play in informing and engaging partners and other stakeholders in that process.
  Far from placing additional burdens on local authorities, the legislation will give them the flexibility to meet those and other existing statutory duties to produce housing-related plans. Local authorities will be free to rationalise the current plan requirements by addressing them within a single document rather than a series of multiple documents.
  With an understanding of how the clause is intended to work and the benefits that it will bring in terms of flexibility, I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I have a nasty feeling, born of long and bitter experience, that anything that is required by local government eventually becomes extremely expensive. First, guidelines are issued on how something is to be introduced, then guidelines provide for who is to be consulted, how many pages long the report must be and so forth. I am bound to say that I think that this will be far more costly than the strategies and business plans that have had to be produced up to now.
  I understand that the Minister does not agree with me. For the moment, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 178A:
  Page 45, line 36, at end insert—
  "( ) The matters specified under subsection (1) shall include home energy reports under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995 (c. 10)."
  The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment aimed at obtaining assurances from the Minister about the priority that should be given to certain duties of councils to report a variety of strategies to central government. This amendment

  GC 245
  refers to the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995, which applies only to housing authorities. However, I also have concerns about homelessness strategies.
  The Explanatory Notes accompanying the Bill make it clear that, in future, the local housing strategy document will form the overarching framework within which an authority should consider and formulate other policies on more specific housing issues. The Bill also gives local housing authorities the freedom to include within the local housing strategy some or all of the other material that would otherwise be set out in separate documents. Does that include matters which are duties under the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995? I presume that that includes homelessness strategies, the idea being that a council should produce a single document if it is appropriate to the local circumstances.
  Some reassurances on homelessness strategies were given in the debate in another place, but people are concerned that some of the important issues may be subsumed. One area in which I have a particular personal interest is that surrounding the Home Energy Conservation Act. The amount of information under the provisions of that Act which has been obtained from local housing authorities has not been a happy tale. Many authorities have still not reported and we still await information for 2001–02, let alone last year.
  I understand that in the summer of 2001 further guidance was going to be produced for authorities to ensure that they fulfilled their duties under the Act. However, I understand that while an advisory committee aided by external experts reported to Defra at the end of 2001, nothing much has transpired. I wonder, therefore, whether the Government have it in mind that this should provide a vehicle to ensure that authorities produce their reports and strategies under the Home Energy Conservation Act. Furthermore, I seek a reassurance from the Minister that the provision will not prevent the Government from pursuing important issues such as energy conservation and homelessness, simply because an overarching strategy will be put in place.
  The other question I wish to put to the Minister is this: because this concerns reporting to central government, how does it fit in with the new housing regime, under which duties will be given to the regional assemblies, other regional bodies and, it is hoped, elected regional assemblies? Although the information is to be directed to central information, much of it will be relevant to those regional bodies which will administer the finance on housing matters and make suggestions as regards how it is to be spent. It seems to me that this information could be valuable to those bodies. What mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that information that is sent to central government is then distributed to the interested regional bodies?
  I hope that the Minister will be able to answer some of my queries which arise from what is in reality a probing amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness provided us with an interesting commentary on the
  GC 246
  amendment, which perhaps went a little wide of its starting point. Nevertheless, it has promoted some useful thoughts to be exercised on the issue. I do not know whether the noble Baroness will accept this point, but I can recall when I was chair of our housing committee and the leader of the authority, we did seem to have to produce many strategy documents which impacted in some way on housing issues. I remember signing off quite a lot of them. However, we were always left with an abiding thought: "Hold on, have we not already told them this and isn't that information already included in that document over there?". It was rather an irritating process and I was never sure whether we were actually saying the right things when bidding for HIP money and so forth.
  When I read through the speaking notes for the amendment, I found myself thinking that it makes good sense. On the one hand, I can see that the provision might look like yet another statutory burden, but on the other hand, I would argue that it provides for a sensible rationalisation and a streamlining of the process so that all those housing-related documents are pulled together.
  We are fully committed to rationalising the plan burden on local authorities, but we believe that imposing this framework on all local authorities is not the right way forward. What we have sought to do is set out clearly in the Explanatory Notes, to which I have just referred again, that all local authorities will have the option to rationalise housing-related plans such as the home energy conservation report, the homelessness strategy and the housing strategy within a single document.
  We believe that that will give authorities the flexibility to address centrally mandated plan requirements, but to do so in ways that will suit their local circumstances rather than the Government adopting a top-down and prescriptive approach, which would unnecessarily increase rather than ease the plan burden on local authorities.
  The noble Baroness also asked about homelessness strategies and home energy conservation plans. Yes, they will be included within the single approach.
  Turning to the issue raised by the noble Baroness about regional housing boards, I think that she may be getting a little ahead of herself here, but yes, of course we shall have to ensure that those important regional housing bodies are effective and able to work well with local members.
  I hope that that response satisfies the points made by the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Maddock: I am grateful to the noble Lord for that clarification. I accept the purpose behind this part of the clause, as I accept that we are always passing legislation requiring local authorities, in particular local housing authorities, to do a variety of different things. It is sensible to bring all those matters together so that they can interact properly. However, my main concern turned on whether we shall still place the right emphasis on the points of policy that we want to pursue and which require the information contained

  GC 247
  in these reports. I say that because it is quite clear that, under the old regime—certainly as regards the provisions of the Home Energy Conservation Act—the information was not produced as had been intended. It was on that point that I sought reassurance.
  I am not entirely certain that I have received the reassurance, but I have no problem with the intention behind the clause. I am concerned that we will be able to ensure that the matters we would want to emphasise ultimately may not he given the right emphasis. If the Government have not thought about how they are going to distribute such information to the regional bodies, then it is about time that they did so. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 179 not moved.]
  Lord Smith of Leigh Lord Smith of Leigh moved Amendment No. 179A:
  Page 46, line 8, at end insert—
  "( ) The provisions of this section shall not apply to those authorities identified as "excellent" under the provisions of sections 100 and 101."
  The noble Lord said: First, I must declare my interest as the leader of an excellent council. One of the freedoms the Government have announced for excellent authorities is that there will be no need for them to fill in a number of strategic plans that they have in mind. This probing amendment seeks to test whether such a freedom is to apply to authorities falling into the "excellent" category. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: My noble friend Lady Hamwee has explained several times why we are not really in favour of distinguishing between local authorities. In this case I am particularly concerned. We have just debated how important these strategies are, and if the best performing authorities do not send in the information, I shall be even more worried about how local housing boards are to be able to distribute the money if they do not know what the best performing local authorities are doing.
  Lord Rooker: I welcome the fact that we have reached another amendment from my noble friend Lord Smith of Leigh which enables him to give himself a damn good and well-deserved pat on the back as the leader of an excellent authority. Obviously it is a very well managed authority with good delegation of powers and authorities. I pay tribute to all those involved in achieving the "excellent" category award.
  Amendment No. 179A would mean that the requirement to produce a housing strategy could not be applied to those local authorities identified as "excellent". We have already announced that we shall not require excellent authorities or authorities that have produced fit-for-purpose documents to submit housing strategies or housing revenue account business plans.
  In the case of the remaining authorities, we are no longer subjecting their strategies and plans to annual assessments, but instead taking a more targeted approach in which the Government Offices will
  GC 248
  continue to work with local authorities to address weaknesses in their planning processes and service delivery.
  Amendment No. 179A would have been appropriate if we were legislating to place a statutory duty on all local housing authorities to produce a housing strategy and we needed to specify any exceptions to that rule. But that is not the case. Clause 88 has been deliberately drafted so that it does not apply universally to all housing authorities. The duty will not apply to any authority until triggered by the appropriate person. This allows us to take a tailored approach to plan requirements and assessment which will depend on local authorities' circumstances. We will therefore not apply this provision to authorities that are either "excellent" or have produced fit-for-purpose documents.
  The legislation as currently drafted already allows us to take a flexible and constructive approach that is entirely consistent with the wider policy to rationalise the plan burden on local government.
  I hope that, with what I firmly believe are good reassurances, my noble friend will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: I thank my noble friend for that response. Just before I reply, perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness, Lady Maddock, that I do believe that this is an important document because housing is such an important matter. But those authorities that think comprehensively might consider housing as part of a wider strategy and not just on its own.
  In view of the comments made by my noble friend to the effect that this is not a duty on "excellent" councils, and provided that we do provide information about what we intend to do in some form, I am delighted to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 88 agreed to.
  Clause 89 agreed to.
  Clause 90 [Housing Revenue Account subsidy: payment and calculation]:
  [Amendments Nos. 180 and 181 not moved.]
  Clause 90 agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 181A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  5 p.m.
  Clause 91 [Housing Revenue Account subsidy: negative amounts]:
  Baroness Maddock Baroness Maddock moved Amendment No. 182:
  Page 48, line 35, at end insert—
  "(6) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall keep for each financial year an account (to be called a "negative housing subsidy account") and—

  (a) the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall keep each account in such form as the Treasury may direct, and

  GC 249

  (b) the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall at such time as the Treasury may direct send copies of each account to the Comptroller and Auditor General.

  (7) The Comptroller and Auditor General shall examine, certify and report on any account sent to him under subsection (2) above and shall lay copies of the account and his report before each House of Parliament or in the case of Wales before the National Assembly for Wales.
  (8) For each financial year, sums received by the appropriate person in the year under subsection (1)(b) above shall be credited to the account kept for the year.
  (9) For each financial year, payments made by the Secretary of State, or in the case of Wales the National Assembly for Wales, in the year under subsection (11) below shall be debited to the account kept for the year.
  (10) Before a financial year begins the Secretary of State, or in the case of Wales the National Assembly for Wales, shall estimate—

  (a) the aggregate of the items of account that will be credited to the account kept for the year, and

  (b) the aggregate of the items of account that will be debited to the account kept for the year under subsection (9) above.

  (11) The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall make payments to the housing revenue accounts of local authorities.
  (12) The aggregate of the payments made under subsection (11) above shall not be less than the estimate made by the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales under subsection (10)(a) above.
  (13)The Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales shall determine a scheme for the payments to local authorities, and the scheme shall take account of the need for investment in the housing owned by that authority.
  (14) In this section "local authority" means—

  (a) in relation to England—

  (i) a district council,

  (ii) a county council that is the council for a county in which there are no district councils,

  (iii) a London borough council,

  (iv) the Common Council of the City of London, or

  (v) the Council of the Isles of Scilly;

  (b) in relation to Wales, a county council or a county borough council.""

  The noble Baroness said: A similar amendment was moved in another place, where there was some discussion about it. Since then some of the figures given by the Minister in another place have been looked at. I am grateful to the Local Government Information Unit for its briefing. I understand that the surpluses accruing from the housing revenue account to several local housing authorities will go directly to the Treasury for the Secretary of State. Concerns have been expressed that the Bill really proposes that one method by which housing revenue accounts subsidise the Treasury—when rent rebates and their subsidies were within the housing revenue account—is being substituted for another, whereby rents and any surpluses from the housing revenue account are taken back to the centre.
  Part of the Minister's response in another place was that the housing account is a national housing account and that they did not want to create a situation in which allegations of unfairness could be made because
  GC 250
  council tax payers complained of paying a subsidy towards tenants in their areas. That partly addresses the issue whereby council tenants subsidised others through the council tax benefit system. However, my main concern is that the provision is very centralising and that reassurances given in another place show that it does not help council tenants very much.
  When the Minister answered in another place, he talked about what happens at present under the housing revenue accounts. Surpluses are offset against rent rebate expenditure to produce the net subsidy figure which is met by the Department for Work and Pensions. The total cost to the Treasury consists of payments to local authorities towards rent rebates plus a housing element subsidy. When that was worked out for the present system in 2000–01, the rent rebate expenditure totalled some £3 billion; the housing revenue account surpluses totalled about £1.5 billion. leaving net rent rebates subsidy of about £2.5 billion plus a housing element of £447 million.
  Under the current system the net gain to the Treasury was a little over £1 billion from the surplus housing element subsidy. Under the new system there will be no rent rebate subsidy to the housing revenue account and housing revenue account surpluses will be paid into the pool which pays housing element subsidy. I think that is the central housing revenue account about which the Minister was talking.
  Therefore, had the new system been operating in 2002–03, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister would have paid something like £943 million in housing element subsidy to local authorities but £660 million would have to be met through the housing revenue account surpluses and only £283 million would be supplied by the Treasury instead of the £943 million under the current system. So I am still concerned that this is very much a centralising project. I seek further assurance that this money will be spent on housing. I am very concerned that it is going back to the centre, rather than local authorities having the ability to organise their finances. Yet again in the Bill we think that matters are getting better and that local authorities are to have more ability to manage their own finances but, ultimately, there is a central grip over those moneys from local government. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising these issues. In making some of her comments, she is perhaps reading too much into the Government's intentions. I shall take a little time to go through this significant and complex issue.
  The removal of rent rebates and rent rebate subsidies from HRAs will create surpluses on the housing revenue accounts of many English and Welsh authorities. Clause 91(1) provides that these will be paid directly to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly, as appropriate.
  Amendment No. 182, which requires the Secretary of State and the National Assembly to keep separate ring-fenced accounts of the amounts paid to them, and

  GC 251
  to pay those amounts into local authorities' housing revenue accounts, is not necessary. We think it will add an extra layer of bureaucracy.
  The Government agree that it would be wrong for council housing either to subsidise or to be subsided by the general council tax payer. The Minister in another place made a clear commitment that the resources captured through the pooling of HRA surpluses should and will he used for housing purposes.
  We have repeatedly made the point—we made it clear in November 1999 through our consultation paper The Handling of Rent Rebates under Resource Accounting; again in the Local Government White Paper in December 2001: and in the Explanatory Notes to the Bill—that our intention is to use the pooled surpluses towards providing HRA subsidy to those "deficit" authorities in England whose assumed expenditure on their housing stock exceeds their assumed rental income.
  Section 80(2) of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 means that those 18 English authorities which at present have a housing element surplus exceeding their rent rebate subsidy entitlement currently have to transfer an equivalent amount to their general fund. By repealing Section 80(2), Clause 91 will ensure that, subject to any transitional arrangements to protect council taxpayers, such authorities will pay the surplus into the pool. Once the transitional arrangements are ended, none of the notional HRA surplus will be paid into the general fund. That will stop the current subsidy of the council tax by council tenants. So it creates a fire wall.
  There is no need to provide a separate mechanism for the payments of these amounts to local authorities housing revenue accounts because the surpluses will be paid to authorities as part of their HRA subsidy, which is paid into the housing revenue accounts. As the housing revenue account is ring-fenced, this will prevent such resources simply being absorbed into the general council budget.
  The requirement to account separately under Clause 91 for the sums paid by authorities to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales is an unnecessary bureaucratic burden which would increase administrative effort at no advantage to local housing authorities themselves.
  Amendment No. 182 would also require the Secretary of State to pay out to local authorities' housing revenue accounts for a year an amount not less than an estimate made before the start of the financial year. I am sure the noble Baroness will appreciate that the final amounts of HRA surpluses to be collected will not be known with certainty until final audited data are available from authorities after the end of the financial year. The amounts due to those authorities in deficit may also change during the year—for instance, as interest rates change. Tying payments to authorities to estimates made before the beginning of the year would not be a sensible or prudent way to proceed. It could disadvantage authorities and the national taxpayer.
  GC 252
  I hope that, with those assurances and the reassurance that we are committed to using the sums paid to the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.8 to 5.22 p.m.]
  Baroness Maddock: I thank the Minister for taking time to respond. I still have a query. Under the new regime the Treasury seems to be getting a greater proportion of money to do with what it wants.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not quite sure how the noble Baroness works that out. I have given a very clear explanation as to how the mechanism will work. I need to hear a little more on how the noble Baroness sees it working.
  Baroness Maddock: I did my best to explain as we were going along. If the Minister would like to look again at what I said, it may be that he can clarify the point further. However, the provision seems to replace one system with another from which the housing revenue account will not necessarily benefit, but in which the Treasury's element changes. The calculations supplied to me, which use figures supplied by the Government, show that the Treasury will still get something like £660 million, with which it can do what it wants. I understand that it is a problem. I understand what the Government are trying to do and that they do not want anything too bureaucratic. We were assured when this issue was debated in another place that all the figures will be there at the end of the year, and audited, and one could look at them. I hope that the Minister will be able to look again at this matter and to give me some further information, perhaps in a note afterwards. Meanwhile. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 91 agreed to.
  Clause 92 [Housing Revenue Accounts etc: adaptation of enactments]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 183:
  Page 49, leave out lines 19 to 27
  The noble Baroness said: I speak to Amendments Nos. 183, 185 and 186. They deal with Clause 92, about which we have considerable concerns. We believe that the new changes to be made in Part 6 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 are drawn too widely. Our fears are further consolidated by the report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform. It commented:
  "Clause 92(1) inserts a new section 87A in Part 6 of the 1989 Act, which enables the Secretary of State/the Assembly to amend. repeal or re-enact any provisions of Part 6 and to make incidental and similar provision (including amendments of Acts). Orders by the Secretary of State are subject to affirmative procedure. There is no limitation or indication in the bill as to the purposes for which the power is to be used. The reason given for the provision in the Explanatory Notes accompanying the bill, paragraph 241, is that it will, 'provide a mechanism whereby … changes to the HRA may be made as and when required to reflect new circumstances or to improve the financial arrangements for local authority

  GC 253
  housing'. The ODPM's memorandum provides little further explanation (paragraphs 110 and 111). The Committee considers that this delegation is too wide and that it would be appropriate only if its extent were limited on the face of the bill to specific provisions in Part 6".
  I welcome the slight limitation which government Amendment No. 184 proposes to these powers and I thank the Minister for giving at least some consideration to the comments and recommendations made by the Select Committee. However, will the Minister convince me—and I need convincing—that curtailing these wide-ranging powers to apply specifically to Sections 74 to 76, 78 and Schedule 4 to the 1989 Act is a sufficient amendment? It does not go as far as we believe it should. Again, I fear that wretched word "flexibility" will be thrown back at me in reply. We have mentioned it a couple of times already. But I should like to remind the Government that there may be a time when the Minister in question is not a Labour Minister and that they may come to repent the numerous ministerial powers that are enshrined in the Bill in the name of "flexibility".
  Amendment No. 185, in a similar vein, seeks to probe the wide-ranging powers set out in Clause 92(4) in relation to orders made under Section 87A of the 1989 Act. In particular, I would welcome some comments from the Minister on the purpose of paragraph (b). It could encourage inconsistency and a lack of uniformity in the Government's approach to housing finance. On what basis does the Minister intend to make different provision for different cases or authorities, and under what circumstances? Our Amendment No. 186 seeks to limit the latter to "classes of authority" rather than "authorities" in general. We believe that orders made regulating housing finance could, appropriately, differ for different classes of authority.
  We do not believe, however, that it is justifiable to have different provisions within individual authorities themselves. As I said previously, we believe in equal financial measures for all so as to ensure a consistent approach and to avoid any discrimination against successful authorities in the interests of those who consistently fail to achieve. There is a delicate balance to be maintained. I look forward to hearing from the Minister that the Government recognise and appreciate the need for a uniform approach to housing finance. I beg to move.
  5.30 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall not read out the first paragraph of my brief because the noble Baroness did so for me. She perfectly described the score, so we shall pass on that, but it is worth raising some points that will address her issues of especial concern.
  The 16th report of the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform considered that that delegated power was too wide and recommended that its extent should be limited to specific provisions within Part 6. We have carefully considered that recommendation. As we made clear in another place, there are no plans immediately to use
  GC 254
  the new Section 87A powers, but we considered that a broad power was right, with suitable parliamentary safeguards. Had those powers been available four years ago, when the Government first made a commitment to removing rent rebates from the housing revenue account, we could have put the proposal before Parliament straight away, as local government—and, perhaps more importantly, tenants' groups—wanted.
  By limiting the power to specific provisions in Part 6 of the 1989 Act, we run the risk of restricting what can be achieved in the future, even if there is general agreement that change is necessary. However, in view of the Select Committee's concerns, we are prepared to accept that the new Section 87A powers introduced by Clause 92 should be limited. The amendment means that they will extend only to Sections 74, 75, 76 and 78 of and Schedule 4 to the 1989 Act. We believe that that is the minimum necessary to accommodate as quickly as possible desirable changes to the housing revenue account in future—subject, as appropriate, to parliamentary approval.
  Amendment No. 183 would prevent the Secretary of State or the National Assembly for Wales from making modifications by order. Amendment No. 185 would prevent the appropriate person from including in such an order any consequential, incidental provisions as necessary to other Acts. As I mentioned, the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform recommended that the extent of the powers should be limited to specific provisions within Part 6. We propose to do so. The committee did not think it necessary to recommend that their extent be limited to Schedule 4 only.
  We believe that it is necessary to retain powers to amend the above mentioned sections of Part 6, in addition to Schedule 4, and that will enable us, for example, to make such provision as may be necessary to give effect to the proposal for new, self-financing, arm's-length management organisations, which was announced in the sustainable communities plan.
  It is not yet possible to say for certain what that proposal may require, but it may be that changes to the statutory provisions under which authorities are required to keep a housing revenue account will be needed. It may also be necessary to make different provision for budgeting and accounting by such authorities. It also likely that there will be implications for HRA subsidy, but currently we believe that we can manage with existing and proposed provisions in the Bill—in particular those in Clause 90.
  Amendment No. 186 would prevent the Government making modifications by order to Part 6 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 for individual authorities. It would restrict different provision for different cases or classes of authority.
  The amendment would hamper our power to deal flexibly with authorities in especially difficult situations. I appreciate that Kensington and Chelsea and Essex are not authorities with difficult problems—at least, not of the kind that we here seek the flexibility to handle—but other authorities may well get into

  GC 255
  difficulties and fall into dire and extreme circumstances. In such circumstances, it is right that we have maximum flexibility to consider special provision and enable intervention. It may be necessary to amend, for instance, the items to be credited or debited to the housing revenue account.
  Part 4 of Schedule 4 to the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 already provides a power to direct that the provisions of Part 6 be excluded or modified in relation to specific authorities—so the provision already exists—or specific houses or other property within the housing revenue account. That already gives us some of the flexibility we require.
  The new powers contained in Clause 92 are broader, allowing, for instance, new items to be specified for credit or debit to the HRA, giving us the maximum possible flexibility when dealing with those few extreme situations. The existing direction-making power is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny, whereas the new order-making power would be subject, in England, to scrutiny by affirmative resolution of each House of Parliament. So we have built in more safeguards.
  I hope that that provides the necessary reassurance sought by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. She chided me earlier by saying that in the future we might have cause to repent, but presumably she envisages an alternative to a Labour government only in the form of a government from her party. I cannot believe that her party would cause us to repent in those circumstances, or that she would expect it to put us in such a position.
  Baroness Maddock: Is the Minister saying that the clause will enable the Government to allow certain local authorities—he referred in particular to those that may set up arm's-length management companies—not to have housing revenue accounts? Was that what he implied? He is receiving mixed messages from behind him.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I think the nods are now in the one direction, so the answer is yes.
  Baroness Hanham: I heard the word "flexible". I thought that I would; that is wonderful.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I will bring my thesaurus next time.
  Baroness Hanham: No, that was good; I do not like to be disappointed.
  There was a great deal of detail about the provisions in Part 6 of the 1989 Act, which I do not have immediately before me. I want to read carefully what the Minister so ably read out. I am not sure whether his grasp of Part 6, Section 87A, and so on, is deep; mine is not. I am worried that the provision still leaves too much to the Government's discretion, which is precisely what the Select Committee was trying to hinder. I shall reconsider that and, if necessary, return to it later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 184:
  Page 49, line 20, leave out from first "of" to end of line 21 and insert "sections 74 to 76 and 78 of, and Schedule 4 to, this Act;".
  [Amendments Nos. 185 and 186 not moved.]
  Clause 92, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 93 [Local housing authority houses: rents]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 187:
  Page 50, line 8, leave out subsection (1)
  The noble Baroness said: Our Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 focus on Clause 93, which concerns local housing authority rents. The point of subsection (1) is to limit Section 24(3) of the Housing Act 1985 so that it applies only in relation to Wales and not to England as well. Subsection (2) allows, at some later date, for Section 24(3) to be repealed by order by the National Assembly.
  According to the Explanatory Notes, Section 24(3),
  "requires authorities, when setting their rents, to have regard to the principle that rents of houses of any class or description should bear broadly the same proportion to private sector rents as the rents of houses of any other class or description".
  They continue that the reason that that is to be changed is because,
  "in certain circumstances, the requirements of section 24(3) might make it difficult for authorities to comply in the longer term with the Government's rent restructuring policy in England".
  The amendments are designed to be probing only. Can the Minister shed light on the Government's longer term rent restructuring policy? On what basis has it changed or will it change from previous policy? I understand that subsection (2) is intended to take into account the devolved status of Wales, but what will be the effect of having a change only in England but not in Wales on cost and revenue?
  Furthermore, can the Minister explain in detail why he thinks that Section 24(3) is obstructive? My honourable friend Philip Hammond commented with considerable foresight on Report in another place when he stated:
  "My understanding of section 24(3) … is not that uniform rentals—or fixed percentages for public-sector rents by comparison with private-sector rents—have to apply across the country, but that there should he an equivalence of proportionality, in a local authority area, between public sector and private sector rents across different types of dwelling. That is surely sensible".—[Official Report, Commons, 5/3/03; col. 857.]
  I agree wholeheartedly with my honourable friend's stance. The approach in Section 24(3) seems to be commendable in terms of balance and proportionality. Can the Minister explain why it sits uncomfortably with the Government's longer term rent restructuring policy?
  I notice that in answer to Mr Hammond in another place, the Minister, Nick Raynsford, stated that to remove Clause 93 would be to stop the removal of an obstacle to the policy of rent reform. I look forward to hearing the reasons why Section 24(3) is an obstacle to rent reform and what alternative the Government intend to put in its place. I beg to move.
  Lord Rooker: I hope that I can give a satisfactory explanation. When we consider the grand scale of

  GC 257
  things, we may think that the provision is about nit-picking lawyers trying to deal with every little nuance that may arise. But in the context of the rent restructuring policy—which is not a five-minute job, of course, it is a job for a decade—I hope that I can explain the reasons for the clause.
  As the noble Baroness said, Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 both relate to the policy of encouraging local authorities and registered social landlords to restructure their rents in line with a national formula, announced in The Way Forward for Housing in December 2000. Prior to the introduction of rent restructuring, in some areas rents being charged by neighbouring councils for similar properties—in fact, identical properties; I can think of roads divided by the local authority boundary in which the dwellings on both sides of the road were originally built by the same builder and are exactly the same—varied by a third or more, while housing associations were able to charge over half as much again as councils for similar properties in the same area.
  In time, the rent restructuring policy will produce a coherent pattern of rents across England. That will send the right signals, enabling social tenants to make real choices about where they live while keeping rents affordable.
  In contrast, if social rents were allowed to approach market levels, some housing providers in areas of low demand would be unable to operate, while in areas of high demand, such as London, those on modest incomes would be priced out of the market altogether.
  Amendments Nos. 187 and 188 together would effectively remove Clause 93, which deals with a potential obstacle to our policy of rent reform in England. Clause 93(1) effectively repeals Section 24(3) of the Housing Act 1985 in England. Section 24(3) requires local authorities in England and Wales, when setting rents, to have regard to the principle that rents of houses of any class or description should be broadly in the same proportion to private sector rents as the rents of houses of any other class or description.
  Section 24(3) does not require local authority rents to be the same as those in the private sector—local authority rents are of course generally well below market levels. Section 24(3) requires local authorities, in setting rents, to have regard to the proportions between rents for different types of property in the private sector.
  Some local authorities have suggested to us that the requirement in Section 24(3) might make it difficult for them to follow our policy of social rent reform in England, particularly towards the end of the 10-year restructuring period, as their rents might approach the Government's national rents formula. That is because the pattern of formula rents in an area might differ from the pattern of private sector rents in that area. Clause 93(1) is intended to address those local authority concerns by removing that potential obstacle to achieving social rent reform. So, first, it is a potential obstacle and perceived that it may be a problem towards the end of the rent restructuring programme—which is, of course, some years away.
  GC 258
  Amendment No. 188 would remove subsection (2), which allows the National Assembly for Wales by order to repeal Section 24(3) as amended by subsection (1)—that is, in Wales only—if it wants to do so in the future. Colleagues in the Welsh Assembly are currently undertaking research into social rent levels in Wales. Following that, the Welsh Assembly will want to decide its social rents policy for Wales, and to have the flexibility to remove Section 24(3) in Wales should it become a similar obstacle to reform, as it is perceived to be in England, some years away. So it is really giving the Welsh Assembly that flexibility.
  Before anyone else points this out, I am aware that in the border areas between Wales and England, the same problems may arise as exist between local authorities in England. That is a highly technical point and no one is saying that it is a major problem that we must deal with tomorrow. However, the potential problem has been spotted and it is right to take the opportunity of the Bill to provide the facility to deal with it, if it becomes a major issue. I hope that that explanation satisfies the noble Baroness.
  5.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his explanation. I am slightly surprised that the provision is advanced at this stage of the rent restructuring process—there are a good few years to go before it is complete. I am sure that there will be another local government Bill before then, into which it could have been inserted.
  Lord Rooker: I nearly said that.
  Baroness Hanham: It is amazing how they turn up at four-year intervals.
  I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply, which I shall of course study carefully to decide whether we need to return to the matter, but this was a probing amendment designed to elicit that response, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 188 not moved.]
  Clause 93 agreed to.
  Clause 94 [Power to charge for discretionary services]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 189:
  Page 50, line 28, leave out subsection (3)
  The noble Lord said: It is not at all clear to me why the Government believe it necessary to stop local authorities charging the market rate for their services through the exercise of this power. Many local authorities will be dismayed that, having been granted a general power to charge for discretionary services, they are to have their hands tied through this unnecessarily restrictive caveat. My amendment would remove that restriction.
  We understand that that power is to be exercised primarily to promote the economic, social and environmental well-being of our communities and is not to be seen as a money-spinner. That is fine.
  However, in order for local authorities to be able to provide a service and to raise their standards of service provision, it is clear that on occasion they might want to over-recover their costs in order to invest in service improvements. To be prevented from doing so is likely to lead to a gradual deterioration of service.
  Will the guidance on the exercise of that power allow over-recovery for the purpose of re-investment? Having glanced through the draft, it is not clear to me that that would be the case. Furthermore, where a local authority chooses to enter the marketplace, is it not obvious that it should do so on a commercial basis? Businesses will not welcome the provisions, which will distort local markets.
  I appreciate that the Minister will probably take the view that the purpose of the powers is to enable local authorities to step in to provide services where the local market cannot or will not do so. That may, in many cases be true, but should we not also consider the powers as an opportunity to stimulate local markets? That will not be the effect of having a large, uncommercial player taking part. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: We, too, want to probe Clause 94(3). The grouping includes not only Amendment No. 189, but Amendment No. 190, to which our names are attached—well, mine is; I am not sure why that of my noble friend Lady Maddock was left off—Amendment No. 190A, also in our names, and Amendments Nos. 191 and 192, to which I am not sure whether the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, spoke, which stand in his name.
  I almost feel that I should declare an interest in that when I chaired the planning committee of the London Borough of Richmond upon Thames in the mid-1980s I had a rather entrepreneurial deputy chair who thought that we ought to be charging developers for the valuable advice being given to them entirely free by planning staff. We did, for a bit. We charged only £25—probably below the real cost, but I hate to think how much we cost the authority, because McCarthy and Stone brought us all the way to this House. Since then, I have been looking forward to local authorities having the power to charge, because that is entirely proper. So I begin by welcoming the provision.
  However, like the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, I wonder why Clause 94(3) is required. Indeed, starting from the McCarthy and Stone case, which concerned whether local authorities have the vires to charge, I am worried whether including the provision would enable another McCarthy and Stone to state that authorities were not able to do what they wanted to, because they were not balancing income and expenditure over a period. That may be technical, but it could be a real problem.
  In the draft guidance from the ODPM, we read that the Government want to allow for the uncertain costs of setting up, which is why the guidance suggests taking one year with another. Like the Minister, I feel the need of a thesaurus here, because I have written, "surely more flexibility than that is required", but it is required. For instance, an assessment of the take-up may need to be made over a period.
  GC 260
  Amendment No. 190A is intended to define the costs of provision. I have used a fairly well-tried formula, which includes the direct and incidental costs of provision; it does not allow people to bung in everything that they can think of and call it a cost, but, quite properly, it extends to costs beyond those narrowly associated with the provision.
  Lord Rooker: Talking of bunging-in, reading through my speaking notes, there is a lot of bunging-in in them. I know that this is an important set of amendments and that there are a lot of them, But I shall try to keep my explanation brief and understandable.
  Within this group are attempts by two separate routes not just to allow but to push an authority into unrestricted commercial activity in discretionary service provision, irrespective of that authority's performance. That is a real worry and the number one reason why we cannot accept the amendments.
  The effect of Amendments Nos. 189, 191 and 192 is to allow authorities to engage in unrestricted commercial activity in discretionary service provision irrespective of that authority's performance. The general power to charge in Clause 94 applies to all best value authorities. Best value authorities include not just local authorities, but also police and fire authorities, national parks and certain town and parish councils. The Government do not intend that that general power should be linked to performance.
  The purpose of providing a new general power to enable best value authorities to charge for discretionary services is to encourage them to enhance their existing services and develop new ones that will help to improve the service they provide to their community. We do not intend through the new power to provide a new source of income for authorities, but to allow them to cover their costs.
  As I said, the provision on charging in Clause 94 is not about allowing authorities to enter into commercial activity in their discretionary service provision. The Government are not opposed to authorities engaging in commercial activity—I want to make that absolutely clear. Indeed, we are proposing new powers for best value authorities to enter into commercial activity by trading with private sector organisations. Those proposals are set out in Clauses 96 and 97, to which we shall presently turn. But we believe that such commercial trading should he carefully controlled, including that the trading should be undertaken through a company and that it should be available only to those authorities which have demonstrated a high level of performance.
  Under the charging power that we propose, an authority will not be required to charge for a service and may charge some recipients more than others, as long as, overall, it complies with the duty that the noble Baronesses and the noble Lord seek to remove. But it is not intended that authorities should as matter of policy cross-subsidise services between recipients— for example by deliberately charging some recipients more than it costs to provide a service and others less—while, overall, charging no more than the costs

  GC 261
  incurred over a period of years and thus complying with the duty. That would be a recipe for disaster and we do not want to go down that route.
  Amendment No. 189 would remove the duty in Clause 94(3). That would mean that charges under the power would no longer be limited to cost recovery. That would be contrary to the purpose of the charging power. Importantly, it would also interfere with and undermine the controls proposed under the powers to trade, to which I have already referred, which are provided in Clauses 96 and 97. That is because all best value authorities would as a result be able to engage in unrestricted and uncontrolled trading activity in discretionary services through the general charging power.
  Amendment No. 190 also attempts to allow uncontrolled commercial activity in discretionary service provision, and is similar to an amendment proposed but not debated when the Bill was considered in another place. But the effect of Amendment No. 190 is not, I fear, what was intended.
  I have already explained that the purpose of providing a new general power to enable best value authorities to charge for discretionary services is to encourage them to enhance their existing services and to develop new ones.
  The key effect of Amendment No. 190 is that it would alter the relationship between income from charges and costs of provision. In the Bill, the duty placed on best value authorities requires them to secure that the income from charges does not exceed the costs of provision. That means that the income from charges must be equal to or less than the costs. The constraint here is on the income from charges.
  But Amendment No. 190 turns the duty around, so that costs of provision do not exceed the income from charges. That means that costs of provision must be less than or equal to the income from charges. Here, there is no constraint on the income from charges. Indeed, accepting the amendment would sanction commercial activity under the charging power and would allow authorities to set charges at any level, as long as the income from the charges for discretionary services remained greater than the costs of providing those services. As I have already described, that would be contrary to the purpose set out in Clauses 96 and 97.
  Amendment No. 190A defines the meaning of,
  "the costs of provision",
  in Clause 94(3) as:
  "all costs of, and incidental to, the provision of the service".
  I am sure that the amendment is intended to make the provision easier for authorities to interpret. It seeks to define the term "costs of provision", and thereby to interpret for authorities what they may include within such costs when assessing charges to be made for a particular discretionary service. However, in doing so, it does not offer any practical definition.
  In Clause 94, "costs of provision" is deliberately not defined so as to give authorities maximum discretion and flexibility in its interpretation, both now and in
  GC 262
  future. Authorities should be free to establish their own robust methodology for assessing the costs of providing a discretionary service.
  Clause 94(6) provides that best value authorities should have regard to guidance that the Secretary of State or the Welsh Assembly may issue. We have recently consulted on draft guidance, a copy of which has been provided to the Committee. The consultation period closes at the end of this month. In the guidance, we have suggested that authorities should draw on existing and familiar principles set out in CIPFA's best value accounting code of practice for establishing the costs of providing a discretionary service.
  In the light of this explanation, I hope that noble Lords will withdraw the amendments. I can see why they were tabled but their consequences are such that we could not possibly accept them.
  6 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: I have been wondering whether to come back at the next stage with an amendment to Clause 94(3) stating that the income will not exceed the approximate costs, or something like that. In other words, if a local authority is a penny or two out. it will not be caught out. Can the Minister comment on that today? I can table such an amendment for the next stage, but I am trying to save time.
  Lord Rooker: I am all in favour of trying to save time. I would hate to think that a local authority would fall foul of some crazy interpretation of the Bill and that because its costs turned out to be a little lower than it thought and it made a profit of a quid, that nullified the whole exercise. I would hate to think that the system was so stupid that that could occur. I am not looking for nods from my officials, and I am not getting any. Obviously, if the noble Baroness tables such an amendment I will be happy to give her a considered response to it.
  Lord Hanningfield: I would like to question the Minister a bit more. Towards the end of his response, he seemed to indicate that local authorities could include some of the costs, as they saw fit, such as the cost of the democratic process in local government and the costs of council buildings. It is sometimes difficult to work out what the actual council costs are. Running committees and so forth have a cost. They could be interpreted as part of the on-cost. I should like to give an example.
  Lord Rooker: Surely the examples the noble Lord has given do not cover discretionary services.
  Lord Hanningfield: The cost of democracy goes across the whole council. For example, because of the problem with the redirection of revenue support grant, we are having to massacre our discretionary services. We have 40 archaeologists, as Colchester is the oldest town in the United Kingdom. Every plot that is dug up in every bit of Colchester has to be photographed or reserved. If we could make ordinary market rate charges for archaeology, we could probably keep our team. As we cannot, we will probably not have many

  GC 263
  archaeologists at all, because we cannot charge the cost that would be asked by outside people. So we will probably decimate our archaeology team.
  It is not just a question of the cost of the team but of the democratic process. There is a cabinet member responsible for that area of work and a committee looking at it, resulting in substantial cost overheads. That cost is to do with the democratic process in local government, not just with providing the service. It costs about £4 million to run our county hall in Essex. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, it all depends on the interpretation of costs.
  The Minister seemed to indicate that we could include some of those costs in the overall costs that could be recovered, which might enable some discretionary services to continue. If we just charge the actual costs of the archaeologists, the service might go, but if we could include the other costs, it might be able to continue.
  Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord argues a case that could be to local authorities' detriment, I draw to his attention the draft guidance from the ODPM, which suggests that there are two options to establish the cost of provision, one of which is to include an appropriate contribution to costs relating to corporate and democratic core and unapportionable central overheads. I am a bit worried that the longer the noble Lord goes on talking, the more he will talk himself out of including such costs.
  Lord Rooker: The noble Baroness has answered the question, in a way. There is a degree of latitude. I do not know why we keep talking about Essex; I do not know what it pays its chief executive, but some of the runaway costs might be objected to by those on the receiving end of the charges. So there is a warning for you.
  Lord Hanningfield: I can assure the Minister that the leader has to work a lot harder than the chief executive, but does not get anything like the recompense. With that—
  Lord Rooker: Stop digging.
  Lord Hanningfield: Yes. We will consider this important area. Obviously we welcome the new power but we want to make certain it helps to keep some of the discretionary services in place. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendments Nos. 190 to 192 not moved.]
  Clause 94 agreed to.
  Clause 95 [Power to disapply section 94(1)]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 192A:
  Page 51, line 13, leave out paragraph (a).
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendment No. 192B. Clause 95 provides the power to disapply the clause we have just been debating. Amendment No. 192A would remove the power from the Government to disapply Clause 94 with regard to particular descriptions of best value authorities or
  GC 264
  particular best value authorities. Amendment No. 192B is similar, with regard to particular kinds of service other than those which apply for all best value authorities—for the reasons that we gave quite a few times when debating that clause. We do not like the distinctions made between authorities.
  As I understand it, the Government said that the charging power should be available to all authorities. I assume that this clause is, at least in part, about the CPA categories. The consultation draft to which I referred in the previous group of amendments says that the provisions were scrutinised by the House of Commons. Well, not these provisions, which is why I tabled the amendments.
  Paragraph 8 of the draft refers to encouraging the improvement of services. I am unclear how that is covered or regulated by the Bill. In particular, paragraph 18 says that the power can be removed, which means that the Government could take action in the event of unfair competition—for example, where an authority was undercutting local private sector suppliers of a service and especially where substantial numbers were given discounts on charges.
  Even leaving aside whether it is proper to try to control things from the centre in that way—and although we may not be as much in favour of the free market as the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, we believe that the market tends to regulate matters to some extent—I cannot see how that is necessary if we retain Clause 94(3). Perhaps the Minister can help me on that. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: We cannot support the amendments, and I will explain why.
  The power in Clause 95 is a reserve power, which we expect to use only very exceptionally. But it means that the Government could take action if an authority were to misuse the power to charge. An example might be where it became clear that an authority was not complying with the duty in Clause 94,
  "to secure that, taking one financial year with another, the income from charges under that subsection does not exceed the costs or provision".
  If, as a result, the authority was effectively undertaking unauthorised trading activities, Clause 95 would enable the general power to charge to be withdrawn from that authority.
  The power in Clause 95 might also be used if it became clear that it was riot in the public interest for any best value authority to charge for a particular discretionary service. Clause 95 enables the Government to take action in either of these circumstances, if Parliament is content.
  I should draw attention to the combined effect of the two amendments. The charging power could only be disapplied from all best value authorities and only for a particular kind of service. So it would not be possible to withdraw the power to charge from an individual authority in the event that it was misusing the power—something of a blunderbuss.
  I am afraid that the amendments might even be an invitation to some authorities to abuse the power to charge and to act beyond their reasonable use of the

  GC 265
  powers. We think that this could happen if the Government had no power to intervene in the case of misuse other than to withdraw the charging power from all authorities, which would unnecessarily penalise those that were acting properly and within their powers.
  Amendment No. 192A would prevent withdrawal of the power to charge from an individual authority or from groups of authorities. It would not prevent disapplication of the power per se because it would leave in place the power to disapply the charging power in relation to particular kinds of service by those authorities. I take it, therefore, that the noble Baroness acknowledges that the power to disapply is needed. But disapplication of the power on a service-by-service basis would result in a lengthy and time-consuming process for Parliament, which would have to consider it, since every possible discretionary service that an authority might undertake would need to be identified and disapplied separately. I am sure that, on reflection, the noble Baroness would agree with me that that would not be a sensible use of parliamentary time.
  Amendment No. 192B would mean that any disapplication under Clause 95 must apply to all best value authorities. That would prevent the Government from withdrawing the power from a particular authority if it misused the power. The combined effect of the amendments would mean that the charging power could only be disapplied from all best value authorities.
  I hope that, with that explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord is on a winner because he knows that I have to withdraw my amendment today. I do not agree with the reasons he has given for the necessity for the clause. For it to be disapplied because it might not be deemed in the public interest to charge for the service seems questionable. What happened to freedom and flexibility?
  Perhaps that one is an exception, but I think I will at the next stage go back to my question about why it is necessary to be able to remove the power to stop an authority making a commercial return if Clause 94(3) is in place. It does not seem necessary to me. If we really are talking about freedoms and flexibilities, giving a freedom and retaining the power to withdraw it needs to be justified. However, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 192B not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 193:
  Page 51, line 20, at end insert—
  "( ) The power under subsection (1) does not apply to best value authorities that have been placed in the top tier of classification in accordance with the provisions set out in section 100."
  The noble Lord said: We continue with the same theme. There is no question but that Clause 95 will discourage local authorities from making use of the
  GC 266
  Clause 94 power. In order for that power to be used effectively, there must be some stability in the system. Local authorities setting up the new services and new charging systems that we discussed could incur considerable one-off costs. They will not do that if there is the possibility that the Government will suddenly remove these powers. Nor will partners from the private or voluntary sector sign up to working with local authorities on that basis.
  We are opposed to that power in general. We are particularly opposed to it in relation to CPA excellent authorities. Obviously the Minister will have some views on that. We want CPA excellent authorities to he excluded from the scope of the clause.
  The Government have introduced a system of classification at great expense. They have identified councils that they consider to be excellent and have promised them extra freedoms. Without those freedoms, there is no justification for the whole CPA exercise. So we are entitled to expect that where there is the scope to extend freedoms, the Government should do so.
  We would prefer the clause to be abandoned altogether. But if that is not to be, we want excellent authorities to be excluded from its scope.
  There is no doubt that invoking the clause has the potential to cost local authorities money and to damage their relations with the community. It is important that the Bill should make it clear that the Government will take into account the financial impact on a local authority of the exercise of that power and that existing arrangements will enjoy a measure of protection.
  I hope that the Minister will carefully consider Clause 95. Without the safeguards that I have suggested, it threatens to undermine the thrust of the Government's policy.
  6.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: The Minister has not leapt to his feet. He has been carrying the banner of excellent authorities all the way through the Bill. and I am stunned that he is not supporting the amendment. Perhaps in this particular area he does not want the excellent authorities to intervene.
  It is a question of what we mean by all the efforts that have been put into the CPA and their outcomes. The amendment would ensure that excellent authorities were seen to have gained some benefit. It is interesting that the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Smith, and by us about recognising the excellent authorities have all been turned down by the Government. I very much hope that we will see an exception this time.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: This is a re-run of the previous debate. I am sure that noble Lords who are interested in the issue know that this is a reserve power and that it would be used only in extremis. There will be well defined circumstances in which that might be the case, particularly where an authority was undertaking unauthorised trading activities. The

  GC 267
  provision would enable an intervention where it would not be in the public interest for a best value authority to charge for a particular discretionary service. I am sure that we can all think of such circumstances. For example, an authority might seek to use an excessive charge to discourage the use of a service and undermine its long-term effect. In those circumstances, it would be justifiable to have an intervention.
  Amendment No. 193 would fetter the discretion of the Secretary of State, so that he could not disapply the power to charge for discretionary services from authorities adjudged to be in one of the top tier of performance categories, by virtue of their categorisation under Clause 100. The reference to "top tier" makes that amendment flawed, as the concept does not exist in statute in any event.
  The amendment would prevent the Government from taking any action and would prevent the removal in the public interest of the power to charge for a particular service from a top tier—perhaps inappropriately named—authority.
  Amendment No. 194 would prevent the Secretary of State from using the power to disapply the charging power from existing arrangements. We can well understand concerns that arrangements entered into lawfully should not be made unlawful by the exercise of the power. But Clause 122 provides for transitional provisions to form part of any orders made under the Bill, and we would include such arrangements in any order made.
  The effect of Amendment No. 194 is also wider than has been described. It would prevent the Secretary of State from making an order to disapply the charging power from any existing arrangements. By definition, any services for which charges were made under the new charging power would become "existing arrangements". And, equally, any service where there was evidence of misuse, perhaps because it involved unauthorised trading, would be an "existing arrangement". So the Government would he unable to withdraw the charging power for the very services and from the very authorities that the power at Clause 95 is designed to address.
  Amendment No. 195 would require that the Secretary of State have regard to the financial impact on an affected authority. Clause 122 provides for transitional arrangements to form part of any orders made under the Bill. In any such orders, we would include arrangements, for example, to cover the status of agreements previously entered into prior to the withdrawal of the charging power, so that they could run their proper course.
  When considering withdrawal of the charging power, we would always ensure that there was full consultation with the authorities affected and consider the impact of withdrawing the power. We are committed to the new burdens procedure which requires us to reimburse local authorities for any additional costs they might face as a result of charges introduced by us, such as the withdrawal of a power. We would give authorities the opportunity to rectify
  GC 268
  their situation and discuss with affected authorities any proposals we may have for intervention before acting.
  I hope that that explanation provides a better understanding of how we would seek to use the power. We would use it as sensitively as possible and only where we felt that there was abuse and a failure to recognise the importance of the public interest.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the noble Lord for that answer. It still does not explain why one could not exclude excellent authorities—they would clearly not be misusing those trading powers; if so, they would not be excellent authorities.
  I suspect that we will return to this theme of the real value of being an excellent or good authority. We have not discussed the CPA process. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 194 and 195 not moved.]
  Clause 95 agreed to.
  Clause 96 [Power to trade in function-related activities through a company]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 195ZA:
  Page 51. line 39, leave out subsection (4).
  The noble Baroness said: I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 196ZB, 196A, 196B and 203A. However, I do not recognise Amendment No. 195A in this group. Our Whips' Office cannot trace my asking them to table it. Yesterday, I asked for it to be withdrawn, along with other amendments, but it is still there. So someone is very keen on it, but it is not me. I cannot even find what Clause 18(5), to which it refers, is about. That was to do with an amendment that CIPFA asked us to table some time ago.
  Amendment No. 195ZA would leave out Clause 96(4), which requires that the power to trade shall be exercisable only through a company in which the local authority has an interest. I believe that that was not in the draft Bill and I tabled the amendment to probe why it is now included. Amendment No. 196ZB, which would leave out subsection (3), is tabled because of our continuing distaste for the Secretary of State's ability to distinguish between authorities.
  Amendment No. 196B refers to the provisions on exercise by reference to authorities' performance categories. We tabled it because we disagree with the use of performance assessment as a basis for granting powers, a point that we have made consistently throughout the Bill's proceedings. Clause 101 could he applied retrospectively, which particularly concerns us. What happens if a local authority drops a performance category? The councils will be reassessed periodically, and although one hopes that "continuous improvement" will mean just that, some authorities may move into lower categories.
  I understand that there is to be some provision for transitional arrangements if this is to happen. While that is helpful, it is not a complete answer, because it is not clear whether a particular trading agreement can continue in that situation. A council entering into a

  GC 269
  commercial agreement needs to be certain, as does everybody else, that that will stick. It would be very helpful for the legislation to deal with the issue.
  Amendment No. 203A applies the same restriction to Clause 101 itself. Amendment No. 196A is consequential, even though it appears earlier. I beg to move.
  Lord Hanningfield: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 196. These provisions give the Secretary of State sweeping powers to interfere in any commercial function undertaken by a local authority. The powers do not seem to be restricted to the new powers set out in the Bill but cover anything that the local authority has the power to undertake for a commercial purpose or anything that it does for a company. If that is not the intention of these provisions, is it not better to make it clear on the face of the Bill that these provisions refer only to the Clause 96 powers?
  Even if the powers were so restricted, we would still take issue with them. Under what conditions could the Secretary of State impose these powers? How would they be applied and under what circumstances? As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said, authorities could enter into a commercial transaction and withdrawal could cause chaos.
  These questions need to be answered. The power is far too general and will deter many commercial organisations and voluntary bodies from entering into a partnership with local authorities. It will make it harder for local authorities to make full use of the powers set out elsewhere in the Bill.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Rooker: I hope I will be able to justify the contents of the Bill, and I hope I have kept track of the amendments that have appeared from nowhere so that I do not waste my time answering them. We agree with the thrust of the concern expressed in Amendments Nos. 196B and 203B, but believe that the issue can be dealt with through secondary legislation.
  Amendment No. 195ZA would remove the requirement for the trading power to be exercised through a company within the meaning of Part 5 of the Local Government Act 1989. It would remove the overriding requirement that the proposed power to trade in function-related activities may only take place through a company. This would remove the very important safeguards we built into the provisions and is simply not acceptable.
  We consider it essential that the new power for local authorities to trade with private bodies and persons for profit should be exercised through a company structure. We are allowing local authorities to behave in a commercial way; it follows they should be subject to the regulation of commercial bodies, for example on taxation. This will help ensure a level playing field in the private sector. I cannot believe that that is not an acceptable explanation.
  GC 270
  Amendment No. 196 relates to Clause 97, which provides an order-making power to impose conditions on the exercise of any trading power by a best value authority, including where the trading activity is undertaken through a company. Best value authorities are also required to have regard to any guidance that may be issued about the exercise of their trading powers. The effect of the amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State—or, in Wales, the National Assembly—to impose conditions in an order and issue guidance on the use of trading powers by best value authorities. This would mean that authorities would be left entirely free to make their own decisions about the exercise of the trading powers.
  We believe for many reasons that it is necessary for us to have the ability to impose conditions and issue guidance. These include providing the necessary safeguards for taxpayers, local service users and businesses. We also need to ensure that councils do not distort markets through the provision of inappropriate subsidies to trading companies or the arrangement of preferential terms and other forms of unfair competition.
  We also intend to impose conditions which will require the preparation of a business case approved by the authority before it embarks on any trading venture. A draft order has been placed in the Library of the House and has been sent also to Members of the Committee. We also propose to issue guidance which will cover the use of these new powers and the potential implications of competition legislation and anti-competitive practices. The amendment would undermine our ability to provide adequate safeguards to small businesses and others that might be affected. It will hinder our objective of ensuring that authorities exercise the power to trade in a commercially responsible manner.
  Amendments Nos. 196ZB and 196A would remove a number of safeguards that we have provided in relation to trading powers. Trading would not be regulated through a company in the same way as it is for other commercial bodies—for example, as regards taxation. Removing the link with performance categorisation would mean that all authorities would be in receipt of the trading powers. It would lead to greater risk as trading would no longer be related to existing strong performance. These important safeguards must be retained.
  Amendments Nos. 196B and 203A address the question of what happens to existing freedoms and flexibilities—for example, trading powers—if an English local authority undergoes recategorisation and is no longer able to exercise the power to trade by virtue of falling into a lower performance category. The amendments seek to prevent the Secretary of State from removing regulatory controls on authorities or granting additional powers linked to a particular performance category where the effect would be to make unlawful trading arrangements which were previously lawfully made. We agree with the thrust of the concern but this issue can be dealt with through secondary legislation.

  GC 271
  This is an unnecessary amendment—what a good phrase! Clause 122 of the Bill makes provision for transitional arrangements to form part of any orders made under the Bill, and we would include such arrangements in any order made under the provisions identified in subsection (2).
  In the light of these explanations—inadequate though they may be and repetitive though they may have been—I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: The Minister's reply deserves re-reading quietly. I am left with a question about the retrospective effects of secondary legislation, not only in principle but because I am working through Clause 101 to establish what secondary legislation there may be which would enable the Secretary of State to deal with the concerns we all have. I shall not take up the time of the Committee by going through it orally but it does not seem to have the necessary scope. I should like to know how it will be possible because the order-making powers referred to do not seem relevant to the issue. Perhaps the Minister will deal with that matter on Report.
  Lord Rooker: Leave it with me. I shall take further advice and. if need be, I shall write to the noble Baroness.
  Lord Hanningfield: I agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said about retrospection, which does not seem to apply to this Bill but to previous legislation and previous activities of local government. We are not sure why that should be so. I agree that we should explore the issue further. Perhaps the Minister will clarify the matter before we reach further stages of the Bill. I shall not move my amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: I beg leave to withdraw whatever amendment I started with.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 195A not moved.]
  Clause 96 agreed to.
  Clause 97 [Regulation of trading powers]:
  [Amendment No. 196 not moved.]
  [Amendment No. 196ZA had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  [Amendments Nos. 196ZB to 196E not moved.]
  Clause 97 agreed to.
  Clause 98 [Power to modify enactments in connection with charging or trading]:
  Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 197:
  Page 52, line 40, after "made)" insert ", other than section 94(2) or 96(2),"
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 197, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 198 and 199 and set out why I oppose Amendment No. 198A.
  Amendments Nos. 197, 198 and 199 seek to implement recommendations made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's 16th
  GC 272
  report in relation to Clause 98, which provides the power to modify enactments—including future enactments—that may prevent or obstruct best value authorities from charging or doing things for commercial purposes.
  Amendment No. 197 seeks to implement the Committee's recommendation that it would not be appropriate for the power to be used to repeal Clauses 94(2) or 96(2) of the Bill. Amendment No. 198 is prompted by the Select Committee's comment that future enactments were not expressly covered in Clause 98(2) whereas they were in Clause 98(1). The amendment rectifies that situation by bringing the two subsections in line with each other. Amendment No. 199 also follows a recommendation of the Select Committee and seeks to bring the drafting of Clause 98(9) in line with that for order-making powers elsewhere in the Bill. It will ensure that no doubts could arise as to how Clause 122(5), as proposed to be amended by government Amendment No. 223—which we shall discuss later—applies in relation to instruments under Clause 98.
  Amendment No. 198A is not acceptable. It seeks to prevent Clause 98 from being used to modify Section 50 of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. However, Section 50 of the 1995 Act was repealed with effect from 25th April 2000 by Section 14(2) and Schedule 5 to the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999.
  I am aware that some disability groups are concerned that Clause 98 might be used so that, for example, the requirements of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 would be disapplied in relation to the charging and trading powers set out in Clauses 94, 96 and 97.
  First, as the Committee will be aware, any proposals to use Clause 98 to modify an enactment would initially be subject to consultation with any person who appears to be representative of the interests likely to be affected by such proposals. If following consultation the proposals were to be implemented, they would then be subject to the rigorous scrutiny of both this House and another place as set out in the affirmative procedures contained in Clause 99 of the Bill.
  Secondly, the Government have no plans to use Clause 98 to modify the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. In fact the Government are seeking to improve the position of disabled people, not to disadvantage them.
  We are committed to comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people. Much of the Disability Discrimination Act is already in place and in October 2004 we will be implementing the final phase of Part 3 of the Act. This requires service providers to tackle the physical barriers to access which might otherwise make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for disabled people to use their service. In addition, subject to parliamentary approval, we will introduce significant new rights under the employment provisions of the Disability

  GC 273
  Discrimination Act using secondary legislation. Indeed, draft regulations were debated and approved by the House on 10th June.
  The Secretary of State for Work and Pensions has also announced his intention to publish a draft disability Bill later this year with measures to further extend civil rights for disabled people.
  Accordingly, I hope that the Committee will agree that Clause 98(10) should not be removed from the Bill and that there is no need for Clause 98 to be restricted in relation to the enactments to which it may apply. With those reassurances, I hope that the noble Baronesses will be content and not move their amendment, which they have so far not spoken to. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: The Minister referred to Amendment No. 198A, which I was requested to bring forward by a disability organisation. In its briefing it stated that such a power could be very dangerous in the hands of the wrong Minister. The organisation did not mean the noble Lord, Lord Rooker.
  Baroness Hanham: How do you know?
  Baroness Hamwee: It would have said so more strongly. The Minister circulated a letter in regard to withdrawing certain amendments—we have not yet come to them—in which he referred to my Amendment No. 199A. He explained the error of my ways in tabling the amendment. I spotted that yesterday, which is why we have withdrawn the amendment. We just about got there in time. The amendment is in this group and that is why I refer to it now.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 198:
  Page 53, line 2, after "enactment" insert "(whenever passed or made)"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 198A not moved]
  Lord Rooker Lord Rooker moved Amendment No. 199:
  Page 53, line 28, after "the" insert "statutory instrument containing the"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 199A had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
  Lord Bassam of Brighton Lord Bassam of Brighton moved Amendment No. 200:
  Page 53, line 32, leave out paragraph (a).
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 200, along with Amendment No. 202, would make subject to the affirmative procedure orders which extend orders removing barriers to charging and trading to individual authorities or particular descriptions of authorities.
  When originally considered, the amendment was designed to match one of the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee's recommendations.
  GC 274
  Having brought it forward, we are now in the embarrassing position of wanting to withdraw the amendment and also Amendments Nos. 202, 205, 206, 207, 208 and 209, which we believe are unnecessary and would mean significant delays to local authorities benefiting from new freedoms and flexibilities.
  We are in the odd situation where we thought we were being helpful—in fact we were being helpful technically—but, on reflection, we have ended up putting ourselves in a position where we are running counter to the overall thrust of the legislation to provide freedoms and flexibilities.
  If the Committee are content for me to withdraw Amendment No. 200, I will not move the other amendments at this stage.
  Lord Hanningfield: I am content to accept the noble Lord withdrawing the amendment and not moving the others.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 201:
  Page 53, line 41, leave out "authorised, but" and insert "not prohibited from providing and"
  The noble Lord said: The purpose of this technical amendment is to ascertain the extent of the powers provided in this clause. Does the definition of "discretionary service" in Clause 98(11) mean that this power can apply to any service that local authorities have not expressly been prohibited from supplying? Or is the definition narrower?
  If the definition is regarded as being narrower than that, can the Minister give examples of services that fall outside the definition? If he cannot, will he accept that to all intents and purposes the two definitions are the same?
  While speaking to the amendment on this clause, can the Minister say how far the Government are likely to go in exercising the discretion in Clause 98 to modify or exclude current restrictions on trading in legislation? We have heard many promises about such freedoms but we have seen a good deal less action. For example, is it the Government's intention to free up the system to enable Essex County Council to market its social services equipment stores regionally, including directly to the public, with a view to making a profit? That would enable us to support further social care needs throughout the county generally.
  If the Minister can say today that it is precisely such freedoms that the Government have in mind, and if he can say that there is a will across government to make this happen, it will be welcomed by all local authorities. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: I have added my name to the amendment. Put simply, the question the noble Lord has asked is: does the term "authorised" extend to the well-being power? It suggests something more specific.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am not sure that the answer to the question is in my notes. The problem

  GC 275
  with the amendment is that it would dilute the definition of "discretionary services". I do not know whether that is what the amendment is intended to do, but it would do so in a way that would ensure that a discretionary service would be one that an authority was not prohibited from providing and not required to provide. That is why we have problems with the amendment.
  First, the amendment would amend the definition of "discretionary service" only in respect of orders made under Clause 98. However, that which constitutes a "discretionary service" under Clause 94 remains unaltered. In the Bill, a "discretionary service" has identical meaning under Clauses 94 and 98. Amending the definition in Clause 98(11) would create confusion as to what is meant by the term "discretionary service".
  Secondly. Amendment No. 201 would widen the scope of discretionary services in relation to orders under Clause 98. That could mean that the power to modify enactments through orders under Clause 98 could be used for a far wider range of services than envisaged; not only those where an authority had a power to provide a particular service.
  Thirdly, the drafting of Amendment No. 201 runs contrary to the way in which legislation relating to best value authorities, particularly local government legislation, is constructed. It is that large body of legislation, developed over many years, that provides authorities with the necessary powers, either expressly set out or implied, to undertake certain functions and provide certain services. So authorities must first identify a relevant power to rely on, before they can say that they are authorised to provide a particular service. I am sure that we are all familiar with that.
  The amendment is flawed because it is based on the incorrect premise that an authority has the power to provide anything it pleases, unless it is prohibited from providing it or is otherwise required to provide it. Is the Committee following this?
  Baroness Hanham: No. But carry on anyway. We shall read it later.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It makes sense when you read it. Authorities are constrained to act within the powers conferred on them by Parliament—after all, I was always told that local authorities are there as creatures of statute—and the amendment might encourage local authorities to provide services that are ultra vires—and no one wants to see that happen.
  I take the noble Lord's point that a particular part of an excellent service provider—for example, the social services department—may want to trade across boundaries and so on. Subject to reasonable common sense, that is what we want to facilitate. We do not want to stop that. We want to allow local authorities to innovate. I shall not respond to each and every example because it is not right to legislate by example. We have to set out the proper categories, and that is what the legislation seeks to do. That is probably what I was trying to say.
  Lord Hanningfield: I was happy with what the Minister said at the end, rather than trying to
  GC 276
  understand what he said during the course of his response. Obviously that is the point we were trying to make. We referred earlier to totally discretionary services such as archaeology. Here I was talking about social services equipment that could be marketed in a wider way. That is what I was trying to clarify. At the end of his response the Minister said that he wanted to make sense of the legislation so that it would help communities and local authorities.
  We will have to read exactly what the Minister said in order to understand it. I do not know whether t he noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, wishes to comment further but obviously we will withdraw the amendment today. I note what the Minister said but we need clarity in this whole area.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand the nervousness. This is an extremely good opportunity for local authorities and they want to grasp it. But they also want to understand where the boundaries are. They hope that those boundaries will have the flexibility to enable the system to work so that when they have got something with which to trade they can make good use of that trading. We understand that.
  Lord Hanningfield: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 98, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Smith of Leigh Lord Smith of Leigh moved Amendment No. 201 ZA:
  After Clause 98, insert the following new clause—
  "PUBLIC AIRPORT AND ASSOCIATED COMPANIES
  (1) The Secretary of State may make regulations to authorize—

  (a) public airport companies,

  (b) companies associated with public airport companies, to engage in a type of activity, specified in the regulations, in which the controlling authority of the public airport company concerned has no power to engage.

  (2) The following shall not apply to any activity authorised by regulations under this section—

  (a) section 17(4) of the Airports Act 1986 (c. 31) (control over constitution and activities of public airport companies),

  (b) any condition imposed on any direction given by the Secretary of State under—

  (i) section 68 (companies controlled by local authorities and arm's length companies), or

  (ii) section 69 (companies subject to local authority influence), of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 (c. 42), if the condition has the same or substantially the same effect as the said section 17(4).

  (3) In considering whether to make regulations under this section, the Secretary of State may take into consideration transport policy, the business of the airport as a commercial undertaking and the potential benefit to the economy of the implementation of the powers to be authorised by the regulations.
  (4) In this section —
  "company associated with a public airport company" means—

  (a) any company of which the public airport company is a subsidiary,

  GC 277

  (b) any other company which is a subsidiary of a company of which the public airport company is also a subsidiary,

  "controlling authority" and "public airport authority" have the same meanings given by section 16 of the Airports Act 1986 (public airport companies and their controlling authorities),

  "subsidiary" has the meaning given by section 736 of the Companies Act 1985 (c. 6) ("subsidiary", "holding company" and "wholly owned subsidiary").

  The noble Lord said: And now for something completely different, as they say. Before I move the amendment I should declare an interest as an unpaid director of the Manchester Airport Group. It was very difficult to register that interest in the House because no one could understand the concept of being a director and not receiving a salary for it. But I am not paid.
  The Manchester Airport Group is 100 per cent local authority controlled. Section 17(4) of the Airport Act 1986 limits the activities of airports to those of their controlling local authorities. So we cannot do more in airports than the local authorities have the vires to do. This severely damages the commercial development and operational capacity of airports such as Manchester. I remind the Committee that Manchester Airport Group now controls four airports—Manchester, East Midlands, Humberside and Bournemouth—and handles 21.3 million passengers a year. So it is second only to the BA Group. It is subject to utility regulation by the CAA but Section 17(4) places unfair and uncompetitive restrictions on the airports.
  Section 2 of the Local Government Act 2000 lays out the broad principle of social, economic and environmental well-being but, as that legislation specifically states, it does not override other legislation. Therefore Section 17(4) of the Airports Act still applies to local authorities.
  The Committee may be wondering why I am moving the amendment here. I tried in July 2000 to move a similar amendment to the Transport Bill that was then going through the House. At the time the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Macdonald of Tradeston, stated:
  "We have told Manchester Airport in correspondence that we are sympathetic to the principle of much of what the airport company is seeking to achieve through this clause".—[Official Report, 10/7/00; col. 115.]
  He then advised me that it was not appropriate for insertion in a transport Bill and to wait for an appropriate Local Government Bill to come along in which to move the amendment.
  I hope the Minister will clarify the position. I hope that the Government still support the principle and, if he is not going to ease the restriction of Section 17(4), perhaps he will advise me how I should proceed in future to change the legislation.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 6.55 to 7.6 p.m.]
  Lord Rooker: It might be worth putting on the record part of my speaking notes. They state:
  "This is the second time Lord Smith of Leigh has attempted an amendment of this kind. He raised the issue previously on the Transport Bill 2000 and at that time the line was that this should be addressed in a Local Government Bill. However, the issue has gone quiet since then".
  My noble friend is going to get the brush-off, but it is a legitimate brush-off. The Government are sympathetic to the proposal, and there are some nice words at the end of my brief, but I appreciate that he received nice words in 2000 as well. That is the problem.
  We cannot accept the amendment as drafted because it goes too wide. It would allow airports to participate in airport activities abroad, which would not be an acceptable extension of their powers. Before introducing any such power we would have to ensure that we had examined all the issues.
  The Bill has not arrived by accident; it has been the subject of a good deal of consultation. It was considered in another place, but this is the first time that the issue has been raised again. I know that Manchester is a red hot authority but, as I said, the issue has gone quiet in the meantime. The position might have been different if it had been raised a bit earlier. The Government also need to answer for some lethargy as the implication was apparently that the issue did not need to be raised because we would address it in a Local Government Bill. It may be six of one and half a dozen of the other.
  The long and short of it is that I cannot accept the proposal today. However, we are sympathetic to the principle of giving additional freedoms to local authority companies. I am very pleased to note that Manchester's local authority airport company has survived all the pressure to get rid of such companies. Obviously it used very good tactics of delay and procrastination during those long dark years.
  As I understand it, we have given a concession to six companies with an established record of profitability by exempting their investment from the normal public expenditure controls. However, for the reasons I explained, I must ask my noble friend to withdraw his amendment. In return, however, the Government would be happy to take work forward on this issue outside the Bill to see what more can be done to give airport companies increased freedoms, with a view to legislating when a suitable opportunity occurs.
  The following bit is not in my speaking note. I am translating the above as a firm commitment that the Government will stay awake and do something about it. In other words, it should not now be left to my noble friend Lord Smith to come along for a third time to be told, "We are sympathetic but you have not quite got it right". So I see this as a commitment.
  In all honesty, there is no way that we could have amendments drafted in time for inclusion in this Bill. At this time of year the pressure on parliamentary counsel is enormous and we just could not have done it. It will happen outside of this Bill. I cannot say whether it will be done in this Parliament, by the

  GC 279
  DETR or by my department. However, I am speaking on behalf of the Government. My notes say that the Government will do it. The Government will not go to sleep or be as lethargic as we obviously have been over the past couple of years during which it all went quiet. I genuinely mean that. This is something we want to do and something that the local authority airport company wants to happen. For some reason we have not done anything over the past two years to make it happen.
  The good will is there. I know that Ministers come and Ministers go, but this is a firm commitment on behalf of the Government. Immediately after the amendment is withdrawn, I hope that we will set in train the necessary action to bring about a happier conclusion than the one I can offer today.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: I thank the Minister for most of his comments. I should perhaps mention that the Minister who gave me the last assurance was left out in the reshuffle. I hope that that will not happen to my noble friend. However, I think that he went as far as he could to indicate that the Government realise they have to address this outstanding issue. It is a problem that must be dealt with if airports such as Manchester are to be competitive. We did not intend the amendment to allow us to do anything of which the Secretary of State did not approve. I hope that the amendment is seeking a national airports policy that promotes what the Government feel that airports should achieve.
  Baroness Hamwee: Before the noble Lord seeks leave to withdraw the amendment, I hope that he will consider introducing a Private Member's Bill when the pace is a little more relaxed and after consultation with the Government. I cannot say that we would support every dot and comma of it, but we would certainly support the principle of using parliamentary time for that purpose.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: I thank the noble Baroness for that helpful comment. However, the Minister said that there will be discussions between the Government and Manchester Airport on the way forward. Perhaps we can find a way forward through those discussions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 99 [Procedure for orders under section 98]:
  [Amendments Nos. 201A to 202 not moved.]
  Clause 99 agreed to.
  Clause 100 [Categorisation of English local authorities by reference to performance]:
  Baroness Hamweemoved Amendment No. 202A:
  Page 54, line 36, leave out "must" and insert "may"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 202A I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 202B and 202C.
  GC 280
  We now come to Clause 100, which deals with performance categories. The title of the clause says it all:
  "Categorisation … by reference to performance".
  I do not need to amplify our position at length. We think that performance assessment is useful. Indeed, in my days in local government I used very much to welcome Audit Commission reports and the whole process of what was then called "performance review". As these things are a matter of buzz phrases, I am sure that the terminology has moved on. However, we do not agree that rights should flow from that categorisation. I am therefore proposing that the Bill's wording should be changed from,
  "The Audit Commission must from time to time produce a report on its findings in relation to … performance",
  to,
  "The Audit Commission may … produce a report".
  I am also arguing that we should remove the provision in Clause 100(2) requiring the report to categorise local authorities and remove subsections (4), (5) and (6), which are also about categorisation. It would allow the Secretary of State to correct clerical and typographical errors, as subsection (5) provides, subject to removing other parts of the subsection. I beg to move.
  7.15 p.m.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): I should advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 202C were agreed to I could not call Amendments Nos. 203 and 204.
  Lord Hanningfield: I support the amendment. We will be moving our own, more detailed amendment later—although it will not be moved if this one is agreed to.
  The CPA process has taken a tremendous amount of time and resources out of local government. I am not sure exactly what benefits we will get out of it. In moving her amendment, the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, said that she did not like the categorisation process. I do not like the whole process. Local government is now governed by inspection. In the past few years, the sums spent on inspections have increased, I gather, towards £1 billion. That money could be much better spent. I am aware of the sums that we spent in Essex county on the CPA process. We came out of the process well, but I should have preferred for that effort to be spent on providing better services. I will be interested to see how the Minister justifies the CPA process. I think that the process will be around for a year or two and then disappear. We support the amendments dealing with this matter.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am nonplussed at the thrust of these amendments. I believe that they would take the rigour out of the system.
  Amendment No. 202A, for example, would remove the requirement for the Audit Commission to produce a report of its findings on the performance of English local authorities in exercising their functions. I think

  GC 281
  that the Audit Commission has done incredibly valuable work. Both in this Committee and certainly on the Floor of the House we have discussed the importance and value of audit in enabling local authorities to conform to the financial disciplines that are so important in determining how they create good value for money, equate their performance in a way that the public can understand and measure and compare. All of that is very important indeed. The wording of the amendment would leave the decision on whether to produce reports to the discretion of the commission. I do not think that that is right. I think that there has to be an understood, clear-cut and no-nonsense reporting process.
  Amendment No. 202B would remove the requirement on the Audit Commission to place councils in categories according to their performance in exercising their functions. I heard the noble Lord's remarks about the CPA process. However, councils have benefited from the process. Indeed, much of the thinking behind CPA was driven by local authorities that were trying to raise their game and improve the quality of their performance. If we were to go along with this particular amendment it would undermine the whole process and remove a whole chunk of activity that is designed to drive up the performance of those authorities and make them provide the very best public service in their locality, as we all expect.
  I think that the categorisation system has focused the minds of local authorities in seeking to provide the best for their local populations. It certainly does that in my area. We were not in the "excellent" bracket, but we were "good". I was very pleased about that.
  Amendment No. 202C would prevent the Secretary of State from making orders listing local authorities by categories of performance assessed through CPA. I think that that would be counterproductive. Contrary to the intention of those who tabled the amendment, I think, the amendment would hinder the provision of the freedoms and flexibilities that we are championing in this legislation and that have been volubly supported in this Committee. For all those reasons—and a whole load more which I could read out but would probably lose the Committee's interest—I think that these amendments are dangerous in terms of what the legislation seeks to achieve.
  Lord Hanningfield: I should like to raise a point which I omitted to make earlier. One of the aspects of the process that local government most dislikes is that local government had to go through the process before there was legislation. It is like a creeping disease. I think that it demonstrates the executive's disregard. The legislation was considered in another place one or two months ago and it has now come to this House, but the CPA process has been under way for one year. We particularly dislike that aspect. If the Government want to change the way that they deal with local government, they should have the courtesy to discuss such proposals in both Houses before implementing them.
  GC 282
  The "excellent" and "good" authorities were already doing good work. I do not think that they have been changed at all by the CPA process. Perhaps we need to do something about the poorer authorities. Perhaps something can be done to help them. However, I do not think that the "excellent" and "good" authorities change very much.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps I can rephrase the question. If you do not have a system of categorisation and measurement and do not operate forms of inspection, how will you know whether an authority is performing well? On such a basis you would have only a woolly construct whereby there was no obligation on the Audit Commission to perform a proper inspection and analysis of the local authority. There would be no obligation on the commission to produce reports and no system whereby you could analyse who is or is not doing well.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: Before the noble Lord responds, may I just say that I think that there have been changes in local authorities placed in the "excellent" category and probably also in the "good" category? The process has given confidence and released a lot of creativity. We are beginning to think outside of the box and we are having a proper dialogue with government about how to change the relationship between local authorities and central government. That may currently be true of local authorities which are classed as excellent, but we hope that it will eventually be true of all local authorities. There have been some real changes, including change in the relationship between the Government and local government.
  Lord Hanningfield: The Minister asked me a question. District councils have not yet been through the CPA process. However, without the CPA process we have identified many district councils that need help and support. The Audit Commission does that. I am involved in helping some district councils to improve. We do not need the CPA process to identify authorities that need help. We can do that through the processes that we already have. I say to the Minister that we can help authorities that need help without the CPA process. It is already happening.
  Baroness Hamwee: The noble Lord is absolutely right: it is government by inspection. I did not criticise the work of the Audit Commission or audits themselves. I made it quite clear that my criticism was about categorisation and its outcome.
  Clearly we are going to have the long version of this argument on Report. I should say now, however, in answer to the Minister's question about how we will know how authorities are doing, that we will know because of auditors' letters which are discussed publicly and very thoroughly, and we will know because of the outcomes of elections. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  [Amendments Nos. 202B and 202C not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfieldmoved Amendment No. 203:
  Page 55, line 12, at end insert—
  "( ) The Secretary of Stale may, following an application from an authority subject to this section, extend the period specified in an order made under subsection (4)."
  The noble Lord said: We have had a discussion about the CPA process. I shall not repeat it. The amendment is more about detail. Let us concede that we must live with the CPA. Having resigned ourselves to that fact our objective must be to make the best of it. The purpose of the amendment is to introduce more flexibility into the system.
  We have seen various provisions tied to an authority's CPA classification throughout the Bill. I am concerned about the effect of a sudden reclassification of an authority; about the financial impact of such a reclassification; and about the effects on partnerships that such a reclassification will have.
  Some suggestions that have emerged from the innovation forum require significant shifts of resources and ways of working, as the noble Lord, Lord Smith, told us. The delivery timeframe for these proposals is way beyond the three-year horizon of the CPA process. I am concerned that there should be sufficient flexibility in the system to prevent damaging reclassifications that fall simply as a consequence of the ending of the timeframe set out in the original order. It may be that, in order to enable innovative and constructive work to go forward for the benefit of a local community, an authority will need to retain its CPA status.
  I am quite sure that this amendment is not technically right. Perhaps the noble Lord could comment on that. Does the Minister concur with my concerns about the effects of reclassification? What safeguards does he think are necessary to reassure local authorities and potential partners of local authorities? I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I congratulate noble Lords opposite on the innovation. Obviously, the spirit of local government innovation is working its way through to the amendments. That is to be applauded.
  Amendment No. 203 would provide a situation in which an application can be made to the Secretary of State for an authority to extend its period within a performance category. I shall pass on the fact that the noble Lord does not like performance categories. Effectively, it would establish a right of appeal on categorisations delivered by the Audit Commission.
  The independence of the Audit Commission's judgments is essential to the credibility of the process and the assessments. A right of appeal could potentially mean that the Government were delivering conflicting judgments on individual councils and could lead to a protracted process of submissions from authorities as well as practical difficulties in responding on an individual basis to the 150 single-tier and county councils and the 238 district councils.
  Potentially, that seems to be a recipe for a great deal of chaos and unnecessary hard work. What then happens if the local authority is unhappy about the
  GC 284
  appeal to the Secretary of State? Does it seek to challenge it within the courts because there is an important issue of principle or a right that it thinks has been overlooked? I do not think that this is the right way or an acceptable way to proceed.
  While I understand the noble Lord's disdain for the categorisation process, we have also talked about its virtues. The amendment would run very firmly against the principle that the Audit Commission should have the responsibility for delivering categorisation based on performance. I cannot believe that he was serious in moving the amendment. I think that he understands the difficulties and confusion that it would create for the local authorities.
  Baroness Hanham: Perhaps we may pursue this point a little. My noble friend Lord Hanningfield has identified what will be a serious problem. If, for example, the Audit Commission recommended that an authority should go from—and it would not be the "excellent" to "good" categories, as that would be all right—"good" to "fair", that might have serious implications for what it was then able to do against what it was currently doing. It might have implications for other organisations. It might have financial implications. It would be interesting to know what sort of testing has been done in regard to what might happen to local authorities in such situations. It is great if one is going up the ladder, but quite a different matter if one is doing a "snakes" down it and wriggling.
  I am sure that my noble friend Lord Hanningfield will suggest that we may want to return to this issue. We need perhaps to have a longer discussion on the implications for authorities moving between categories.
  Lord Hanningfield: I agree with my noble friend Lady Hanham; the Minister has been rather contradictory. First, he was claiming how important it was to agree with the amendment. Now, he has not really answered the question: what happens when you pull a little and suddenly have thrown out everything you are doing? We must address that issue. I do not know whether the Minister wants to deal with it today or whether we should return to the matter on another occasion.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I shall certainly reflect on the comments and observations made. I accept that there are as many implications for those authorities that go down the categorisation as there are for those that go up it. My understanding of the CPA process—and I may be wrong, not having been involved in local authority for a few years—is that there will he early warning signs that something is amiss within the local authority and that there are issues to be addressed.
  My view is that it is an iterative process and that will probably help the local authorities. It is, after all, a way of ensuring that the authority concentrates on improving the quality of its services. That is why the whole CPA process has been put in place. So, yes, I accept that there is an issue; there may well be some implications; and that those issues need to be

  GC 285
  addressed. We shall obviously want to consider the matter. However, that is somewhat wide of the specific issue raised in the amendments, which is that there should be a right of appeal to the Secretary of State.
  Lord Smith of Leigh: I can confirm to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, that the issues raised in his amendment have been discussed in the innovations forum, particularly between the "excellent" authorities. Obviously, we shall ensure that any partnerships entered into have a long-term commitment. I think that the Government understand that in this case. However, as my noble friend said, having established a benchmark position for local authorities through the CPA, which is a very wide and comprehensive view of a local authority—we are not considering a particular area of their activities—the continuing oversight of the district audit will ensure that authorities do not move suddenly from one category to another. There will be signs and authorities will obviously have an opportunity to put those matters right.
  Baroness Maddock: An important point has been raised—in particular, about housing matters. Local authorities often work with voluntary sectors to
  GC 286
  provide particular services for people who are homeless and those with acute housing needs. If we discuss the issue again on Report, I hope that we will get some answers on how the Government view that and whether there are safeguards. It would be dreadful if some of the services for the least well off and the least able to look after themselves in society fell away for lack of funding because of changes in the categories.
  That would obviously not affect many authorities, but, clearly, it could happen. We need to understand from the Government that there are safeguards to ensure that the most vulnerable in society do not suffer when such things happen.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his reply and other Members of the Committee who have participated. I am sure that we shall return to the matter at a later stage in the Bill. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 100 agreed to.
  Lord Rooker: This may be a convenient moment for the Committee to adjourn until Monday at 3.30 p.m.
  The Committee adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before eight o'clock.

  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  Whiterock Sewage Works, County Down
  Whiterock Sewage Works, County Down
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Belfast Agreement
  Belfast Agreement
  Peace II Funding
  Peace II Funding
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Northern Ireland Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure
  Boris Berezovsky
  Boris Berezovsky
  Russia
  Russia
  Iraq: Crimes against Humanity
  Iraq: Crimes against Humanity
  Water Supplies for Civilians in Times of War
  Water Supplies for Civilians in Times of War
  Zimbabwe: Frozen Assets
  Zimbabwe: Frozen Assets
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  Convention on the Future of Europe
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Kenny Richey: Nationality
  Kenny Richey: Nationality
  Iraqi Asylum Applications
  Iraqi Asylum Applications
  Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
  Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003
  Human Rights Instruments: Interdepartmental Review:
  Human Rights Instruments: Interdepartmental Review:
  European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol 12
  European Convention on Human Rights: Protocol 12